Hansard, Tuesday, 24 February 2026

1 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Education (a) what progress the Ministry has made since February 2025 in developing and implementing sector-specific advertising guidelines for tuition and private education services; (b) whether a code of conduct has been finalised; (c) what its key provisions are; and (d) how the Ministry will monitor and enforce compliance to protect parents and students from fear-based marketing.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) is reviewing the measures needed to discourage undesirable advertising practices by tuition and private education providers.

Currently, all advertisements in Singapore, including for tuition services, are already subject to the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice. The code requires advertisements to be legal, decent, honest and truthful, and be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the consumer and society.

Tuition and other private education providers should comply with this code in their advertisements. In line with the Code of Advertising Practice, the advertisements should not capitalise on anxieties to induce demand for tuition services.

We understand that some of these anxieties stem from the perceived stakes of academic grades. To address this and to better support the holistic development of our students, MOE has made shifts in the education landscape to reduce the over-emphasis on academic results. In the coming months, MOE will be engaging parents, students and educators to see how we can continue to reduce the "arms race" in education and attendant anxieties.

Dr Hamid Razak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I would like to ask the Ministry two supplementary questions.

One, I understand there is a general code of conduct for advertisements. Similar to the medical practice where there is a specific set of guidelines for medical practices, is the Ministry looking at a specific set of guidelines for private education and tuition centres?

Secondly, more than traditional forms of advertisement, currently there are very subtle forms of fear-based messaging on digital platforms such as social media. Will the Ministry be doing anything to address this as well?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I do note that as far as tuition is concerned, it can drive a fair bit of anxiety in our parents as well as our students, and I can understand where he is coming from. As I mentioned earlier, MOE is reviewing the measures needed to discourage any undesirable advertising practices by the tuition industry. We will carefully study our options, but we also do not want to rush into implementing any additional measures. Thus far, as far as we can tell, tuition and other private education providers have generally been responsible in their advertisements.

To the Member's second question, in relation to fearmongering in the online context especially, our position is such that if parents or members of the public find that there are some egregious or outlandish claims with regard to tuition, they can also file a report with the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore, which is an advisory council under the Consumers Association of Singapore.

The other aspect in relation to education is also this: we are working towards the holistic development of our students and we recognise that an over-emphasis on academic results alone will not do justice to that. So, the focus of MOE has always been towards a holistic education, wherein we also want to build the social-emotional competencies of our students to develop alongside the 21st Century Competencies, which include critical as well as innovative thinking, and at the same time, the ability to communicate and collaborate as students in schools. This remains our focus. Our desire is when we look at education, it is not merely just about academic grades alone, but also about the holistic development of the child. This is something we continue to encourage in our children as well as message to our parents.

2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding the 21% decline in cancer mortality since 2012 despite rising diagnoses (a) what specific policy decisions or healthcare investments does the Ministry assess as most responsible for this improvement; and (b) how has the Ministry ensured these benefits reached lower-income and less health-literate Singaporeans equally.

Mr Speaker, advances in healthcare have led to earlier cancer detection and better treatment. They have lowered cancer mortality and have benefited all cancer patients, especially in systems like Singapore, where there is universal access to healthcare.

That said, more work needs to be done especially in cancer prevention to modify risk factors such as smoking, unhealthy diet, lack of physical activity and alcohol consumption, encourage vaccinations that reduce the risk of specific cancers and detect the onset of cancer early through screening.

Mr Yip.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I understand that drugs included on the Cancer Drug List (CDL) are based on cost effectiveness thresholds. Can the Ministry clarify how these thresholds are set and how often are they reviewed? And secondly, has the Ministry assessed whether the access gap between patients relying on subsidies and those who can pay privately, is widening and what would it cost to narrow the gap.

Mr Speaker, on the first question, the Member has already rightly pointed out that we assess for clinical and cost effectiveness of the treatments as well as clinical needs. We do not publish the thresholds as this will have impact on our negotiating leverage with the industry.

On the second question, actually, our subsidy framework is already poised and framed to support those from the lower-income groups. Those from the lower-income groups would already get a higher means-tested subsidy. This is the whole point of the CDL because it is really nudging towards affordability. We have already seen very good early results, we have seen a reduction in the price by about 30% on average and for some treatments, 60%. So, we already are seeing very good results. It means that there is more accessibility to these drugs.

There is nothing stopping the higher-income individuals from loading themselves with expensive insurance that actually covers all drugs. We cannot stop that from happening; that is a fact of life. But what we can do is to ensure that the most clinically effective, the most cost effective drugs are available to all.

3 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) for an update on the implementation of key initiatives under the National Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy since its launch in 2023; (b) whether time-bound targets, baselines or KPIs have since been established; and (c) how the Government assesses whether the strategy is on track to achieve its intended outcomes.

Mr Speaker, since the launch of the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy in 2023, we have rolled out several key initiatives.

First, we have guided our mental health service providers to operate based on the Tiered Care Model. Clients can now receive care at the most appropriate setting to better meet their needs. We are also standardising mental health assessments and referral pathways to improve care coordination across different providers.

Second, we have expanded the capacity of mental health services across the acute, primary, community and long-term care sectors. We have also established the First Stop for Mental Health services such as our national mindline 1771 to help people navigate and access services more easily.

Third, we are progressively building the capabilities of community service providers through our National Mental Health Competency Training Framework. We have also trained over 160,000 frontline personnel and volunteers who are now able to identify individuals in mental distress and guide them to get necessary support.

Fourth, we have promoted mental health and well-being through our education efforts. These include Parenting for Wellness to empower parents with knowledge and skills to support their children’s mental health needs, and the Positive Use Guide which offers practical tips to the public to use technology and social media in a healthy and balanced way.

Lastly, we have strengthened workplace mental health support. The Ministry of Manpower has worked with the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council to implement initiatives that build employers’ competencies in supporting employees’ mental well-being. In addition, the WSH Council launched the Handbook on Supporting Employees' Mental Health last year. Meanwhile, the Well-Being Champions Network has grown from 54 founding member organisations to 800 over the last two years.

As part of the strategy, we established the National Mental Health Office (NMHO) in 2024 to coordinate and oversee these multi-agency mental health initiatives. This includes setting and tracking population-level and programme-specific indicators which broadly cover mental health outcomes, accessibility to appropriate care, mental health literacy and attitudes towards individuals with mental health conditions. The performance and targets are regularly reviewed.

Ms He.

Thank you, Sir. I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State, the first relates to the NMHO. I noted that in last year during the Committee of Supply, it was stated that the NMHO tracks the mental health data internally. Will the Government commit to publishing these outcomes and indicators externally, for instance, through a public dashboard, similar to Australia's Mental National Mental Health Performance Framework? This will allow Parliament and the public to be able to better assess whether the strategy is on track through measurable and regularly updated indicators that are published.

And my second supplementary question relates to measurable outcomes and the impact on the treatment gap. Beyond the listing of initiatives, my supplementary question relates to what measurable outcomes have been observed since the strategy is launched in 2023? For example, rates of self harm, suicide attempts or help seeking behaviours. I note that in 2016, there was a treatment gap with approximately 78% of individuals with conditions not seeking treatment. Has this been re-measured? And if not, how does the Ministry assess progress towards measuring and narrowing this gap?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her two questions. On the first question, whether the NMHO will publish data, the answer is yes. We will look at how we can meaningfully share more data publicly over time. But I must say that the strategy, while we had launched it towards the end of 2023, it has only been slightly just more than two years. Mental health is a very complex and multi-faceted issue, so you can see from our strategy we are trying to put more resources into the public domain so that those with mental health issues or concerns can have more accessibility to those resources that we put out.

The Member will understand that for those suffering from mental health issues, it sometimes takes quite a while to convince them to seek help. So, it is not so easy for us to measure outcomes in such a short timeframe. The NMHO actually focuses on monitoring medium- to longer-term trends. In time to come, when we have more meaningful data that we can share publicly, we will do so.

On the second question of what outcomes have been observed, this is also related to my first point that some of these are longer-term issues that we will take time to observe. But as you would have heard from my main reply, what we are doing is to make sure that in our strategy, make sure that navigation is not a hurdle, so there is a first touchpoint to the mindline resources for those who may want to seek help to be guided, to help them navigate the resources that are available, so that by the time they make the decision to step forward and receive care, they will not be lost in the system. Also, through the Tiered Care Model, we then make sure that they receive the appropriate care. Our focus now is on building the capacity and the competency of those who are delivering those tiered model care as we want those who are ready to seek help, to be able to get the help that they need.

Based on this early set of strategy, we will continue to measure indicators and in time to come, share data where available.

4 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what assessment the Government has made of structural unemployment risks facing Singaporean professionals, managers, executives, and technicians (PMETs) in their 40s and 50s; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider further strengthening current measures to support re-employment, mid-career transitions and wage sustainability for this group; and (b) if so, what measures.

Mr Speaker, the long-term unemployment rate for resident professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) in their 40s and 50s remained within the range observed during non-recessionary periods, indicating that structural unemployment risks remain low and stable.

However, rapid technological change and shifts in the external economic environment mean that our workers should regularly upskill to stay up-to-date with industry needs and remain open to new opportunities. This could be more challenging for mature workers. The Government has hence been strengthening measures to support this group to strengthen their career resilience and to manage career transitions.

We have invested strongly in developing our local workforce and several of our programmes offer a higher level of support for mature workers. For example, Workforce Singapore's (WSG's) Mid-Career Pathways Programme and SkillsFuture Singapore's (SSG's) SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme support mid-career jobseekers to acquire industry relevant experience and skills to facilitate career transitions, while WSG’s Career Conversion Programmes provide employers with more salary support to reskill mature workers into growth job roles with good longer-term prospects. Those who require a more substantive skills reboot can tap on SSG’s SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme. In total, we have invested over $10 billion over the last five years on local workforce initiatives to help our workers upskill and remain competitive.

In order to improve access to new opportunities, we need to go more upstream. Workers need to take charge of their career health and take proactive steps to improve their employability. To support them to navigate the labour market and make longer-term career plans, we have introduced digital tools and services, such as the Careers and Skills Passport, CareersFinder and career guidance programmes.

The Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment is studying recommendations to provide better support across a senior's career journey, including during mid-career transitions and later-career stages. Its recommendations will be released in the second half of this year.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

I thank the good Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. My supplementary question, Sir, is born out of what I think is a perceived gap where PMETs, in particular, engineers and information technology (IT) people, have given me feedback on my home visits and Meet-the-People Sessions that they are finding it extremely difficult to find alternative jobs. So, I am wondering whether we can look beyond the SkillsFuture. That is my first supplementary question.

The second supplementary question is, to look at mentorship programmes and lateral hires within the industry; that is my second supplementary question.

And a third supplementary question, which brings it altogether, is the experience that I have with the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union (FDAWU). And in the FDAWU, we care for hotels, food and beverage (F&B), retail and restaurants. And if there is any dip in employment in one sector, then it is a very natural shift to go into another sector, because a person who has worked in a restaurant can then work in a hotel restaurant. So, are we looking at creating tight labour markets within the IT and engineering sectors, such that if there is retrenchment, there can be lateral movements within, for example, union membership, where the unions represent multiple related industries. I appreciate the good work that the Senior Minister of State and his team are doing, but I am just here trying to propose positive steps to plug the gap where the IT and the engineering sector is concerned; and this is born out of my home visits.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, can I perhaps ask the Member to repeat his second question again, because I did not quite catch the gist of it.

The first supplementary question has to do with plugging the gaps. The second supplementary question has to do with lateral movements within one union structure. So, if a union represents multiple industries that are actually related, and I think engineering and IT are quite related, can we create a tight labour market within that union structure, so that we have lateral employment opportunities given? And it is arising out of my experience working closely with the FDAWU.

Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications and questions. On his first point, whether we can go beyond what SkillsFuture currently does to support PMETs, especially as the Member mentioned, in the engineering and IT sectors where they may face some challenges. Indeed, that is one of the streams of work that the Tripartite Workgroup for Senior Employment is looking at. As I mentioned in my main reply, we are trying to go more upstream to prevent even a displacement from a job. So, how can we help our professionals, even while they are still in employment, to try and understand better where they can pivot to, should there be a shift in the industry sector; and helping to guide them in that skills acquisition, in the looking out for opportunities and help them to navigate the kind of challenges that they may need to do in this transitional process?

So, going upstream, even to the age of 40s, for example, rather than wait till they are near retirement, or when they are retrenched. Because at this stage when they are in their 40s there could be some early skills obsolescence in the midst of this rapid economic change and disruptive technologies. So, we believe that if we go upstream, we can do more preventive measures to help them to remain relevant for a longer period of time. So, indeed, going beyond just acquiring skills, how can we build a better career and employment ecosystem to better support them?

Currently, we see that for more higher-end PMEs who are, perhaps, usually head-hunted – rather than them going and applying for a job, people come looking for them. So, we are thinking about whether some of these services can be something that can be more broadly available for PMEs who may want to avail themselves to other opportunities, even while they are still in employment. And that can apply to many other sectors, not just in engineering and IT. So, that stream of work will continue to see how we can go beyond SkillsFuture, as it currently is today.

On the second question of whether we can facilitate more lateral movements across sectors, the Member looked at it from the union perspective, and in fact, in the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), there has been a practice of helping workers who may potentially be displaced from one union sector to reach across other unions in the adjacent sector, and then facilitate their movements through an internal arrangement, because the unions in two different sectors may have more awareness of where the opportunities are. And that is what the NTUC has been doing all this while, something that we will continue to support and encourage as well.

But on the aspect of just trying to facilitate that, I do not think keeping a tight labour market per se, is perhaps, the most appropriate tool to do that. The labour market is tight not because we want to facilitate lateral movements, but it is tight because we have resource constraints in Singapore. But despite that tightness, I think the key thing is to make sure that there is more awareness amongst the workers themselves where opportunities may lie in adjacent sectors and have a system to help them gain the necessary skills so they can pivot across. That would be something that we hope to also do, through injecting a lot more support and services in some of our career employment services that we are thinking about, so that, as an ecosystem, we have a more comprehensive way to help – whether they are engineers, IT professionals or PMEs in different sectors as well, to be able to pivot across when opportunities arise.

So, I hope that gives the Member a sense of what we are doing at the national level, but also in conjunction with what the union is doing already on the ground.

5 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the SkillsFuture framework to better support professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) given feedback that some upskilling and reskilling programmes may cost more than existing SkillsFuture credits.

Sir, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) provides significant financial support for all Singaporeans to upskill and reskill. This includes course fee subsidies of up to 70%, as well as an opening SkillsFuture Credit of $500 at the age of 25. These Credits can be used to offset the remaining out-of-pocket costs for a range of training programmes, such as shorter standalone courses, SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes, as well as full qualifications and stackable micro-credentials delivered by the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).

Additional support is given to mid-career Singaporeans aged 40 and above, as we recognise that they may require a substantive skills reboot, having completed their work-ready qualifications many years ago. Hence, Singaporeans aged 40 and above enjoy the Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy, which increases the course fee subsidy to up to 90%. They also receive a $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up, which can be used for a curated set of substantive training courses that have better employability outcomes. This $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) is generally sufficient to offset the out-of-pocket course fees for a part-time or post-diploma and most SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes. A training allowance, computed at 50% of one's average income over the most recent 12 months and capped at $3,000 per month, is also given to partially offset income loss when they undergo long-form training.

We will continue to review and if necessary calibrate our support, so that all Singaporeans can upskill and reskill throughout life.

Mr de Souza.

Again, I thank the good Senior Minister of State, for his comprehensive reply. I seek some indulgence and flexibility from the Senior Minister of State in relation to this group of professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) who are extremely specialised. They have done their post graduate studies, possibly PhDs, and they have sort of pigeonholed themselves into a specialisation. AI disruption comes and pulls the rug from under their feet, and then, they really have to reinvent themselves. And the view, and I will come to my supplementary, Sir —

Mr de Souza, get to your supplementary questions quickly.

Yes. The view is that they need this extra support beyond what the fees allow them, or the subsidies allow them to retrain. So, can there be some flexibility injected into the review mechanism, for how much uplift they can get in terms of their subsidies?

Sir, I thank Mr de Souza for his question. Indeed, we are regularly reviewing the courses and the way in which we support both the training providers, the employers and trainees to reskill and upskill. The short answer is yes. We are always looking at how we will review these mechanisms of support.

And I would say that the overall intent of what we are trying to do with SkillsFuture as a movement, is very much aligned with what Mr de Souza identified for this particular set of PMETs who have had very specialised skills which have been disrupted. Actually, we want the same type of ability to reboot one's career, to reinvent one's skillset and career opportunities, to be available to all Singaporeans.

So, the overall structure of SkillsFuture, the way in which we support and subsidise the training providers, as well as the trainees, the Singaporeans, through the credits and subsidies, is very much along the lines that he described, not just for those with very specialised skills, but for all Singaporeans. And if this means that for some certain situations we have to look at the courses that are available, the training processes that we deliver in partnership with employers, as well as the IHLs and training providers, we are certainly open to reviewing how we do so.

6 Assoc Prof Terence Ho asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider extending wage offsets or other forms of support to encourage the hiring of chronically ill persons, such as kidney dialysis patients, who may not meet the prevailing definition of persons with disability.

Mr Speaker, persons with chronic illnesses are a diverse group and a differentiated approach is needed to support them. Those who require time for treatment, such as kidney dialysis patients, may request for flexible work schedules to accommodate their treatment regime. The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement (FWA) Requests support such requests. Others might need workplace adjustments or modified duties to ease physical strain and workloads, which employers would need to work out on a case-by-case basis. Yet, others who are on longer-term immunosuppressives may need the understanding and support of employers to provide less crowded workplaces and personal protective equipment. The tripartite partners provide various resources to help employers implement these arrangements, such as the Singapore National Employers Federation's workshops which guide employers on FWA implementation.

The Government recognises the importance of supporting all workers, including those managing chronic conditions, to remain in employment. Beyond support for FWAs, individuals can tap on a broader suite of employment support, including job matching and career advisory services provided by Workforce Singapore and the National Trades Union Congress' Employment and Employability Institute. These agencies work closely with jobseekers to understand their circumstances and match them to suitable roles that accommodate their needs.

Assoc Prof Terrence Ho.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. It came to my attention by reading a news report last month that kidney dialysis patients, in particular, face a significantly higher rate of unemployment. So, my question is, are there processes to review statistics that could identify certain groups who may be facing challenges in employment and is there a review process to see whether they could potentially qualify for the Enabling Employment Credit or other forms of direct support?

I thank Assoc Prof Ho for the question. First, to better understand, the Enabling Employment Credit is mainly for folks who have more permanent disabilities in terms of physical, intellectual, sensory impairments and also developmental needs.

With regard to the newspaper article in terms of the higher unemployment, we are also working together with tripartite partners to make sure that these arrangements are made available to raise awareness among employers on how they can do better inclusive hiring, and also working, for example, with the National Kidney Foundation's chief executive officer Yen Tan, in terms of understanding the potential employers' needs as well. And that is where the matching can work to enhance their employability.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Second Minister for Finance.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) "to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2026/2027, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to make supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2026/2027, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [12 February 2026] [1st Allotted Day], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027." – [Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my support for the broad thrust of Budget 2026, delivered by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.

This Budget reflects fiscal discipline, strategic foresight and a continued commitment to strengthen our social compact in a more uncertain and fragmented world. It balances long-term investment with immediate support for Singaporeans and businesses. At the same time, in a mature economy like ours, the central question is no longer simply gross domestic product (GDP) growth. What matters is whether growth translates into mobility, fairness and confidence across generations.

Increasingly, confidence means this: first, can I sustain my earning power? Can my children do better than me? And can I retire with dignity?

I will address this life-cycle economic security of Singaporeans in three parts today.

But Mr Speaker, before that, however, it is important to note that we are navigating a changed and uncertain world. Geopolitical shifts are reshaping global trade and weakening the international order we have long relied on. At the same time, technological advances, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI), will profoundly reshape how we work, learn and live.

It is therefore heartening that the Government is taking decisive steps to invest for the long term. We see this clearly in the Budget, with development expenditure rising faster than operating revenue and expenditure. This reflects a deliberate choice to strengthen long-term capabilities. But this also raises an important point.

Some of my residents in Toa Payoh have asked me, "Why are there not more 'goodies', especially when we had a Budget surplus of $15.1 billion in 2025?"

Mr Speaker, this is an understandable question. But the surplus reflects, in part, the volatility of the global environment. Unexpected developments, whether geopolitical tensions or trade disruptions, can quickly affect growth and revenue. While we performed better than expected in 2025, as our economy grew 5% beyond our expectations and multinational companies (MNCs) here did well and paid higher than expected corporate income tax, we cannot assume that such conditions will persist. In fact, latest developments in the past week out of the United States (US) with the new prevailing 15% global tariff and the risk of war in the Middle East adds to unanticipated volatility.

Beyond the immediate tariff impact, the deeper concern is the increasing unpredictability of global trade rules and how it could eventually impact global inflation, growth and business sentiment going forward. Globally, beyond the uncertainty of potential refunds, companies must now navigate the specific country- and sector-specific incidences of new import duties. For Singapore, there is still the risk of the semiconductor and pharmaceutical sectors being imposed tariffs.

So, it is therefore prudent that we channel today’s windfall towards strengthening resilience for tomorrow, rather than locking in spending that may not be sustainable. We must also not make the mistake of assuming that the profit cycles will always remain in Singapore's favour.

Mr Speaker, at the same time, we must remain grounded in the realities faced by Singaporeans. I am certain our People’s Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MPs) are aware of the pain points on the ground and will be sharing their views and concerns in this Budget debate today and over the next few days.

In preparing for this debate, the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Finance and Trade and Industry have engaged widely through, for example, the PAP Policy Forum (PPF), resource panel discussions and industry engagements. I would like to thank the PPF team for facilitating these engagements, which included more than 100 participants in focus groups and over 1,000 survey respondents.

The message is clear. Cost of living remains the top concern. Healthcare affordability, job security and retirement adequacy follow closely behind.

From my ground engagements, additional concerns have surfaced: rising business costs for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), higher foreign manpower costs, housing affordability for future and current generations, AI-related job anxieties for all ages, including young job seekers, and dealing with carbon transition costs and pressures from an ageing population – as our society ages and in general, live longer, concerns about a comfortable life as one gets older comes with the accompanying concerns.

Singaporeans are not only concerned about growth in the abstract. They are concerned about whether growth translates into real improvements in purchasing power and economic activity. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the cost of living has gone up sharply in the past five years, not only due to COVID-19, but also because of global supply chain disruptions and an inclination towards narrower views of national interests.

Small business leaders remain cautiously optimistic, but are still concerned about structural cost pressures, rising foreign manpower costs and uneven gains from growth. While these factors are partly external in nature, that is scant consolation for ordinary Singaporeans. The fact is that every dollar is now yielding progressively diminishing returns.

This concern also overlaps with the issue of retirement adequacy – which I will touch on later. If we are to ensure that Singaporeans can retire with confidence, we must mitigate cost of living pressures on a structural level.

One of the main expenses for households and retirees is food. As a visible example, the price of a bowl of mee siam or mee soto has gone up from around $2.00 to $2.50 and now around $4.00 in many places today. This is a 50% to 100% increase in less than 10 years!

This puts direct pressure on households, especially low-income groups and retirees.

In the food and beverage sector, it is imperative for us to strengthen transparency in rental arrangements and assess subletting practices, so that they do not contribute to unreasonable increases in food prices. Additionally, healthcare costs remain a major concern. In the long term, we need to ensure that the healthcare system remains affordable and inclusive.

That being said, we must also recognise the Government's efforts. As we have seen over the past five years, the Government will not shy away from providing comprehensive transfer packages, such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST) offsets, to cushion the impact for Singaporeans and especially our lower-income households.

Structurally, we have also enhanced schemes like MediShield, introduced the Jobseeker Relief Scheme and made the GST Voucher Scheme permanent, in order to give peace of mind to households who need help with their expenses. In addition to structural support, Budget 2026 continues the trend of providing one-off temporary support – in the form of the Cost-of-Living Special Payment, Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers and utilities rebates – when our fiscal position allows us to do so.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I will now continue in English. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) Occasional Paper shows that Singapore has made real progress – real incomes have grown across deciles and, after taxes and transfers, inequality has declined. These are important achievements.

But two structural realities remain. Wealth inequality is higher than income inequality and relative mobility may moderate as our economy matures. This is not a crisis, but it is a structural signal. If we take a longer-term view, including insights from economists like Thomas Piketty, the challenge is that wealth compounds faster than wages. And wealth generates optionality: the ability to take risks, invest in education, support transitions and access opportunities. Over time, opportunity can become linked to starting point.

Mr Speaker, we must therefore continue strengthening start-line equality. We have made good progress through schemes, such as KidSTART and ComLink+. The next step is to sharpen outcomes. We can consider publishing clearer mobility indicators, such as school readiness, attendance and literacy.

We should also strengthen our efforts in terms of access for lower-income youths through internships, mentoring and enrichment opportunities. We already have done so. But because mobility is not only about grades; it is about access.

Mr Speaker, if wealth compounding is structural, we must broaden capital participation. The new Central Provident Fund (CPF) life-cycle investment scheme mentioned in Budget 2026 is a step in the right direction. As this is rolled out, it will be important to ensure: first, simplicity; second, strong default options; third, low fees; and fourth, safeguards against behavioural risks.

Mr Speaker, we already have strong support across the life-cycle, from the Child Development Account to Edusave and the Post-Secondary Education Account, as well as SkillsFuture. These are important foundations. The next step is whether we can connect and strengthen them within a more explicit life-cycle mobility framework, with a modest asset-building element that compounds over time.

Other countries have explored similar approaches. For example, Canada’s education savings system uses government top-ups, including targeted support for lower-income families, to help build education assets over time. This principle is clear – to broaden access through compounding, while keeping support progressive and fiscally disciplined.

In our context, we can consider a Singapore Opportunity Account framework: a modest starting stake, progressive top-ups for lower-income households, a safe, low-cost investment structure and restricted uses, such as education, skills upgrading, housing support enhancements or CPF top-ups.

This is not redistribution. It is structured participation in asset-building.

Let me illustrate briefly. A student from a lower-income household may have the ability to pursue a specialised course or industry attachment but lack the financial buffer. Such an account could support these opportunities. Later in life, the same individual may wish to transition into a growth sector. The account could support reskilling. And at key life stages, it could support housing stability or CPF top-ups. In this way, we are not just supporting income. We are enabling mobility across the life-cycle.

Mr Speaker, this can be implemented without significant new fiscal burden. By integrating existing schemes, targeting support and using capped matching with long-term investment and possibly private sector involvement, we can achieve more impact per dollar. This is an area where further study could strengthen how we design mobility-enhancing policies going forward.

Mr Speaker, let me turn now to one specific area of our tax structure: the exemption of the first $20,000 of chargeable income. This framework was introduced in Budget 2002 to cushion lower- and middle-income Singaporeans as we shifted towards indirect taxation. But that was more than two decades ago. Since then, median incomes have more than doubled, the GST has increased and cost structures have shifted materially. Yet the threshold has remained unchanged.

In real terms, its value has eroded. As incomes rise while thresholds remain static, bracket creep occurs quietly. More lower- and middle-income earners enter the tax base, not because they are significantly better off but because the system has not been recalibrated.

Mr Speaker, the case here is not for tax cuts. It is for calibration. A phased adjustment, for example, to $25,000 or $30,000, would: first, provide meaningful relief to lower- and middle-income groups; second, help them retain more savings and potentially asset-building; and third, restore structural fairness without undermining progressivity.

In this way, we strengthen progressivity while maintaining fiscal discipline.

As our revenue mix has shifted more towards indirect taxes, it is reasonable to ensure that the lower-end of our income tax structure remains appropriately calibrated.

So, I hope the Ministry could consider reviewing whether the $20,000 exemption threshold remains aligned with its original purpose, given more than two decades of structural wage growth, higher reliance on indirect taxation and evolving cost of living realities.

Mr Speaker, third, I would like to address the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans, as I have done since the Budget 2022 debate. I am glad and grateful for the Prime Minister's continued focus on the issue. Among other things, the Government-supported increase in our seniors' CPF contribution rates and the top-up for seniors who have lower CPF balances will boost the nest eggs for our seniors to retire and age with dignity.

These must be seen alongside the other moves that we have made in recent years to help Singaporeans grow their retirement funds, such as the Silver Support and the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS). My question is, what is the Government's assessment on whether the MRSS has been successful in achieving its outcomes? Will the MRSS be continued or even expanded to encourage family members and even husbands, to top up their elders' or homemaker wives' CPF balances and take advantage of dollar-for-dollar matching? And whether the Government also review the Silver Support qualifying thresholds as our seniors live longer and deplete their earlier resources under their conditions currently?

The new and exciting announcement is the planned option for CPF members to invest their funds in a Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme. But as CPF introduces low-cost life-cycle investment products, behavioural design becomes critical. The default structure matters more than choice. If CPF members are nudged into life-cycle funds, those funds must: first, automatically de-risk; second, be globally diversified; third, have strict fee caps; and lastly, include switching safeguards.

The question I have is, will the new CPF life-cycle products include automatic glide-path de-risking, internationally benchmarked fee caps and behavioural safeguards, and what are the terms of reference that have already been given to the CPF Board?

Mr Speaker, finally, another small but significant step we can take is to better define what retirement adequacy should look like. This is because Singaporeans see their CPF balances, but many residents that I have spoken to do not understand what "adequacy" means.

As investment choice expands, volatility risk increases. This makes it more important for every Singaporean to be able to be clear on what is "adequate" for himself or herself.

I recognise that there are inherent difficulties with such a definition. Among other things, it is no longer clear at what age an average Singaporean should retire and as human beings, we can never be sure how long more we will live after retirement. However, can CPF provide scenario-based projections, including downside stress scenarios, to strengthen confidence among Singaporeans that they can adequately provide for themselves after retirement?

Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2026 is directionally sound. It directs fiscal discipline. It invests in long-term capability. It strengthens our social compact.

Our task now is refinement – to ensure that our fiscal strength translates into sustained mobility for Singaporeans, for pushing for greater start-line equality, for broadening capital participation, calibrating fairness. At the same time, we must take care of Singaporeans' later years by strengthening work longevity and ensuring that seniors can retire with dignity.

If we do these well, through Budget 2026 and future Budgets, this will not only support Singaporeans through today's pressures. It will also reinforce confidence in the Singapore model itself – a model where growth, fairness and mobility move in tandem. Mr Speaker, I support Budget 2026. [Applause.]

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, my speech titled, "Taking Care of Our Own," will cover three issues. First, I will speak on the broader geostrategic environment and its implications for Singapore. Secondly, I will discuss the point made by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong over the Economic Strategy Review's mid-term update that GDP growth may not translate into jobs for Singaporeans, before discussing the Budget announcements pertaining to AI skills upgrading and opportunities for our workers. Finally, I will speak about the fiscal position and call for more cost of living support measures for low- and middle-income Singaporeans and for families with children.

The spectre of the Liberation Day tariffs loomed large over Singapore in April last year. The PAP Government dissolved Parliament just days after the Trump administration's announcement.

The political timing of the general elections was calculated to put the PAP in the most advantageous position, with tariff uncertainty serving as a rallying call for voters to back the tried-and-tested. Since then, however, there has been remarkably little information of the sectoral tariffs and their actual impact on Singapore. Despite the doom and gloom surrounding the Liberation Day tariffs, this PAP Government begins its new term with what may be the greatest fiscal surplus any PAP Government has seen in decades.

The Trump administration has determined that the US must re-jig, reset and in some cases, dismantled key pillars of the international system that delivered decades of peace and relative stability in the Asia Pacific. But the US, nonetheless, retains deep influence in the region through its military and economic ties with friends and allies – Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, Australia, India, Japan and others.

Trump or no Trump, these links will continue to take significant priority and shape the strategic calculations of countries across the region. And as the US moves towards a more confrontational posture with China, temperatures in the Asia Pacific have risen and they look set to continue rising. The comprehensive electoral victory of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and the growing domestic political appetite for a more normalised diplomatic and military posture suggest that Japan's pacifist constitution, held for around 80 years, will finally be set aside. The prospect of Japan or even South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons to counterbalance China and North Korea, is now closer to a probability and not merely a possibility.

The increased militaristic signature reflects a regional circumstance unfamiliar to many middle-aged Singaporeans and it remains a source of concern for them. Closer to home, recent hostilities between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) neighbours – Thailand and Cambodia – remind us that regional fraternity and camaraderie do not guarantee peace dividends.

The heightened security environment will keep the Government fully occupied. But for Singapore, the challenge is not just about managing foreign policy. It is what these developments mean at home for our society and our cohesion.

Prime Minister Wong's remarks on the back of Prime Minister Takaichi's comments about Japan's interest in Taiwan's security in November 2025 are a case in point. A notable number of online voices in Hong Kong and China, including some Singaporeans, raised concern that the Prime Minister's comments were insensitive towards Chinese sentiments. This points to something we must address directly – more needs to be done to engage Singaporeans, new immigrants and citizens of all races alike in an interactive and open conversation about our national interests. Without that, the phrase "national interest" risks becoming a shorthand to shut down a conversation rather than to start one. We are a multiracial, multicultural society, not proportioned equally with a growing stock of new immigrants, whose loyalties understandably will take time to root.

In this context, building resilience in our psychological defence is more urgent than ever. The Workers' Party (WP) in Parliament, reflecting the political diversity of our people, looks forward to playing a positive role in strengthening that sense of home and our unity as one people. I have ended my last two Budget speeches with a call to support our men and women in uniform.

It appears that our cyber defence agencies have already tasted combat in their virtual trenches, even if that domain remains shrouded in operational secrecy. As in previous Budgets, Singaporeans will know there is non-partisan support for the defence-related priorities in this Budget. That consensus remains clear and it holds.

Uncharacteristically, one of the most politically significant statements this year to date did not come from the Budget, but from the Deputy Prime Minister Gan at his January media interview on the mid-term update of the Economic Strategy Review. The Deputy Prime Minister observed that GDP growth may no longer translate into jobs for Singapore.

What this does is to put every job-related policy, initiative and scheme announced by this Government into sharper perspective than ever before. For each more so than before, Singaporeans deserve a well-publicised and detailed report card, one that distinguishes rhetoric about promises kept with measurable outcomes subject to Parliamentary and public scrutiny.

The Deputy Prime Minister Gan's remarks on GDP growth also call into question whether three of the four national bonus components, partly used to determine total Ministerial salaries, remain fit-for-purpose. If the Progressive Wage Model is driving income gains for the lowest 20th percentile rather than productivity, how far should it constitute a criterion of the national bonus for the Ministers? Is the unemployment rate among Singaporeans still the right measure or has under-employment among Singaporeans become a more telling and fairer gauge to assess how much bonus Ministers ought to receive? And if GDP growth will no longer reliably create good jobs for Singaporeans, should it remain in the Ministerial bonus formula at all?

Arising from this year's Budget initiatives, I would argue that the national bonus should be anchored to one objective outcome: good jobs for Singaporeans in the age of AI.

AI dominated this year's Budget, the first of this term of Government. Yet more than three years after ChatGPT changed the world, AI remains an enigma for much of our workforce and many of our businesses. I will make two sub-points.

First, the Budget speaks of employing AI to facilitate end-to-end business transformation. This is an ambitious ask. Multinational companies (MNCs) and companies, like DBS and Grab, have the resources to experiment, to sandbox ideas and even to absorb failure. SMEs are not necessarily in the same position. For some of them, navigating AI to improve productivity is not just challenging; it can feel impossible. I look forward to the actionable strategies from the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) on the Champions of AI programme and specifically, how SMEs will benefit from it.

On AI-related subsidies through the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) and other initiatives, such as the Enterprise Innovation Scheme, clear standards and requirements must be established before grants and subsidies are paid out. AI-related grants and subsidies must be ringfenced for truly transformative productivity gains, so that these taxpayers' subsidies are not gamed or abused. Singaporeans would remember the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme of yesteryear and how some individuals and businesses exploited it. Promoters helped to set up shell or dormant companies solely to claim PIC benefits with false documentation or listing phantom employees to meet qualifying conditions. Other reports questioned how many genuine research and development (R&D) breakthroughs were operationalised for businesses through the PIC scheme and whether they moved the productivity needle in proportion to the subsidies that were paid out.

We cannot repeat that mistake with taxpayers money with this latest productivity push through AI-related subsidies.

For workers, the redesign of the SkillsFuture website to make AI learning pathways clearer is a welcome step. At an overarching and strategic level, the AI Council must take a special interest in ensuring that AI-related outcomes are scoped properly. Because done right, this raises Singaporean businesses and workers to higher productivity.

My second point covers the phrase used by the Prime Minister, "Because we take care of our own." That was arguably to me the most significant line in the entire Budget speech when it came to AI's impact on workers. Last week, both CNA and The Straits Times ran a Financial Times opinion piece by Sarah O'Connor in the online and print mediums, respectively, titled "We have to stop calling some jobs 'low-skilled'".

She wrote that, nobody – not your teachers, not your parents, not even the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD's) head of skills analysis – knows which skills will be most valuable tomorrow. If that is daunting for our students and parents, one can imagine how it feels for a mid-career worker worrying about the next mortgage payment and their family while trying to retrain for a world that appears to constantly shift beneath their feet.

There is an age-old problem that manifests itself – workers take up courses, earn new certificates and qualifications, but still find jobs hard to come by. Compounded with that now, is the requirement to master AI.

With the merger of Workforce Singapore (WSG) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) into one agency, there is an opportunity to improve one-stop support for our workers, especially for those who have been retrenched or displaced, steering them towards areas of real opportunity, not just available courses.

I note the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) Minister's comments about greater public sector involvement in supporting job placement for workers at a media interview on the mid-term update of the Economic Strategy Review some weeks back. I welcome that and look forward to seeing developments in this area.

On that note, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) should present a report card on the Jobs-Skills Integrator initiative announced at Budget 2023. These integrators were supposed to bridge the gap between industry needs, training providers and workers. To my knowledge, Parliament has not received a full account of how many workers have benefited, what the shortcomings have been or how this initiative will evolve. That account is overdue.

To round-up this section, I wish the Government, our businesses and our union leaders and workers every success in the undertaking of making AI work for Singapore and to create good jobs for Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, no Opposition response to the Budget is complete without an assessment of past announcements and a call for a report card on their success or shortcomings. Singapore's Budgets are rarely standalone exercises. Take the Forward Singapore exercise. At Budget 2024, the Government announced plans to spend $40 billion on Forward Singapore initiatives through 2030, with $5 billion committed at that inaugural Budget. To my knowledge, there has been no well-publicised tracking of cumulative spending since then.

On that same note, this year's Budget revealed that the next cycle of the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2030 plan stands to be funded to the tune of $37 billion, up from $25 billion in the previous cycle from 2021 to 2025. Yet, there was no comprehensive report on how the previous $25 billion was used, how many jobs were created for Singaporeans, where outcomes met their objectives, where they fell short or even whether it is simply too early to tell. There is real value in reporting such outcomes publicly, at minimum, through an occasional paper at the close of each RIE cycle.

Such transparency allows MPs on both sides of this House to fulfil their duty in scrutinising public expenditure as part of their responsibilities as MPs. It gives our people, and our youth in particular, a clearer picture of the opportunities ahead and helps attract the best minds to Singapore. There is much work still to be done in demonstrating how efficaciously taxpayer dollars have been spent.

Across most Budgets, there is a lack of easy-to-rack outcomes on the headlines that have been announced. The Government should be conscious of the public cynicism and detachment that grows when Singaporeans cannot see a clear accounting of how public funds are being used and communicated for ease of understanding and what results have been achieved. That is not good for Singapore and it sits in contradiction with the participatory spirit that Forward Singapore was meant to embody.

I will speak further on this sub-point during the MOM's Committee of Supply (COS) debate, with specific reference to the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS), a scheme that was due to end, but has since been extended in this year's Budget.

On the fiscal position, the Government begins this term on a firm footing, with a surplus of $15 billion for FY2025, an $8 billion surplus expected for FY2026, with potentially more anticipated as corporate tax collections are expected to rise from FY2027. These surpluses already far exceed the $2 billion to $3 billion or thereabouts, in additional revenue that the GST hikes of 2023 and 2024 were supposed to generate. There will be significant public interest in how these surpluses are ultimately deployed, especially given the pressures of an ageing population and the persistent concern over inequality.

Before I turn to address some specific measures in the Budget, it is worth noting the results of the National Trades Union Congress' 2026 Survey of Economic Sentiments released last month. The findings are instructive. The top concern cited by 37% of workers was wages not keeping up with the cost of living. The second was having enough savings for retirement, at 28%. Job security came in third at 19%, followed by caregiving demands at 9%, and concerns about AI disruption at 6%. These are not abstract anxieties. They are the lived concerns of working Singaporeans and they should shape how we evaluate what this Budget delivers. I believe more should be done to assuage cost-of-living concerns of Singaporean workers and families.

On cost of living, this Budget introduces yet another tranche of CDC vouchers. Singaporeans can be forgiven for treating the scheme as a permanent one. It was not originally conceived as such when CDC vouchers were set at $100 per household. With another $500 tranche to be dispersed in 2027, the time has come to refine the CDC Vouchers Scheme to better help Singaporean families.

Currently, the vouchers are distributed on a per household basis, regardless of household size. That is not equitable. A household of two individuals receives the same as a household of five. I propose a simple and targeted adjustment. Retain the $500 base for all households of three members or fewer. For owner-occupied households with more than three members, provide an additional $150 per person. Based on the average Singapore household size of 3.06 persons in 2025, this is a modest and practical refinement, one that better reflects the actual cost-of-living burden larger families carry.

On families with children, this Budget raises the monthly household income threshold for student care fee assistance to $6,500. I welcome the expansion in reach, but I ask the Government to also review the subsidy calculation framework in favour of greater subsidies as it reviews this sector.

Before the Budget announcement, there were 11 subsidy tiers for households earning between $1,500 and less, and $4,500. The top tier provides a 98% subsidy up to $295 per month. The lowest provides just 20%, or $59. This can be simplified further, starting at the new Local Qualifying Salary figure of $1,800 and below, with perhaps two to three additional tiers to better support parents with school-going children, with the lowest tier receiving at least a 50% subsidy.

Alternatively, the preschool subsidy framework provides all qualifying families with a meaningful base subsidy regardless of income, with additional support determined by income. That design is both simpler and more reassuring to families navigating the system. I ask the Government to consider a similar approach for student care subsidies. The redistributive cost is relatively modest, especially when we consider our chronically low total fertility rate (TFR), but the impact on families and their confidence that the system is always working for them would give the reassurance of a more generous helping hand.

In conclusion, this Budget was delivered against a backdrop of genuine uncertainty, a shifting global order, the disruption of AI and the anxieties of working Singaporeans who worry about whether their wages, their savings and their children's future will keep up, to say nothing of the continued relevance of some jobs, particularly entry-level ones. In this context, taking care of our own represents one standard by which all Government policies will be unpacked, measured and scrutinised by the WP in this term of government. Mr Speaker, the WP supports Budget 2026.

Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the past few years have not been calm for the world. We have just emerged from the pandemic, yet global recovery has been hesitant. Businesses have had to reorganise their supply chains and families have had to readjust the rhythms of daily life.

Just as many thought we were entering a new phase of stability, global politics suddenly shifted gears and circumstances changed rapidly. Some commentators have even described this as a kind of "gangster-style" logic in international conduct. Rules have become negotiable. Agreements can be signed and just as easily overturned.

The US Supreme Court struck down the tariff measures and shortly thereafter, a new 15% tariff was announced on all countries, friends and foe alike. This is not the textbook version of globalisation. It is a more direct and raw contest of power. Great power politics has returned. US-China competition continues to intensify. The Middle East remains tense, with the shadow of Iran still looming. Small and middle powers are increasingly pressured to declare positions and choose sides.

When large waves crash against the shore, small boats feel the impact first.

Singapore is not a bystander. We are a small and open economy. When storms arise, we are among the first to feel them. But amidst the storms, what ships fear most is not only the external waves, but also internal friction. Unity cannot be merely a slogan; it is the prerequisite for maintaining strategic resolve in a complex world. Therefore, in such a world, this Budget is not merely about numerical balance, but national assurance.

After the Budget Statement, over the past few days, I have heard some interesting comments. When the Government runs a deficit, it is criticised as fiscally irresponsible. When it runs a surplus, it is said to have miscalculated.

It is like a person who brings an umbrella and is mocked for being excessive, and yet if he does not bring one and gets drenched, he is mocked for being foolish. National finances are not month-end accounts. They are an inter-generational responsibility.

In recent years, our Budgets have not only met fiscal targets, we have won a larger battle. Because today, we have a surplus. Therefore, We have more "ammunition" to face the storms ahead. A surplus does not mean over-taxation. It means that in an uncertain world, we planned using conservative assumptions and reality has turned out better than expected.

If we had planned using optimistic assumptions instead and subsequently found ourselves unable to pay for healthcare, ageing and security, who would bear the cost?

Not the accountants. Not the commentators. It is the people. As the ancient saying goes: "One survives in adversity and perishes in comfort." When a budget aims to be "just enough", it often ends up being "slightly short". In such a world, we must build strength and prepare in advance.

Before troops move, provisions must be ready. The bow must be fully drawn and the arrows well supplied. Only then can we act effectively when the need arises.

We must clarify a basic principle: GST is a long-term structural revenue source. A fiscal surplus is largely cyclical. Long-term responsibilities cannot be funded by short-term fortune. Ageing does not disappear with economic cycles. Healthcare spending does not fluctuate simply because one year is strong and another is weak.

Using cyclical revenue to fund permanent obligations is like using your bonus to pay a mortgage. Of course, no one says they enjoy paying taxes. But what would truly be unfair is not adjusting tax policy today, it would be having to raise taxes suddenly during a downturn tomorrow. The real question is not whether we can spend more in any particular year, but whether we can support Singaporeans sustainably over the coming decades.

Singapore's fiscal philosophy has always been simple: plan early, act prudently, share gains when conditions allow. This is not poor marksmanship. It is long-range targeting. When conditions turn out better than expected, the Government returns support to citizens through various packages. That is precisely the meaning of preparedness.

As an ancient text puts it: "Digging a well when thirsty is inferior to preparing before the rain." We would rather be called conservative today than be forced into hurried tax increases tomorrow. When the world is uncertain, when great power rivalry intensifies, when supply chains and financial systems can shift overnight, a surplus is not a luxury. It is insurance.

If the next storm arrives, we will not need to borrow in haste, raise taxes suddenly, or cut social support.

That is true fiscal responsibility. Let me say candidly: a fiscal surplus does not mean people feel no pressure. Residents do not speak to us about macroeconomic indicators. They speak about daily life. They worry about: (a) whether AI will replace their jobs; (b) whether prices will continue to rise; (c) whether shop rentals will increase again; and (d) whether families can sustain expenses over the long term.

These concerns are real. Therefore, a Budget must be macro-sound and micro-relevant.

In the North West District, we run Little Steps @ North West, supporting families participating in KidSTART. Children aged zero to six receive $500 in annual support, with additional essentials provided in partnership with businesses.

From early childhood education to parent-child bonding and nutrition, we walk step by step with families. This is not a large-scale subsidy. It is a long-term investment. These measures may not be large in scale, but they are concrete. The meaning of policy lies not only in national figures, but in the small sigh of relief in everyday life.

A Budget is not merely a fiscal document. It paints a picture of the society we want. Let me use a New Year metaphor: the Yusheng. Yesterday was the seventh day of the Lunar New Year, we all did "lohei".

The fish represents the economic foundation. If the fish is not fresh, nothing else matters. AI adoption, enterprise transformation, and industry upgrading ensure that the fish remains fresh. And may our Budgets always have surplus. The shredded vegetables represent skills and education. Future security comes from adaptable capabilities, not fixed positions. Peanuts and sesame represent social support. Support for families, seniors and the vulnerable ensures that society can move forward together over the long term. This is no small matter.

The sauce represents our we-first spirit. Not "what do I get?" But "how far can we go together?" Each ingredient alone seems ordinary. But combined together, they create the flavour of the New Year. Fiscal discipline is like the golden crackers simple in appearance, yet holding the entire structure together.

Coming to the earlier topic, as great power rivalry intensifies and international law and trade rules come under strain, small and middle powers must cooperate more closely. Singapore has a responsibility to strengthen ties with other middle powers, uphold the multilateral system, and stabilise trade networks. When rules are challenged, we must stand up to defend them. This too is part of the purpose of the Budget’s support for diplomacy and international engagement.

Singapore has never grown amidst an environment of certainty. Our independence was uncertain. Financial crises were uncertain. The pandemic was uncertain. Yet each time, we relied on two things: resilience and unity. When the next wave rises, we will have the resources, societal trust and capable people. As long as we continue to move forward together, Singapore will continue to rise!

Today is the eighth Day of the Lunar New Year, I wish for favourable weather and good harvests and peace and prosperity for the country and its people.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Speaker, I support this Budget. This Budget covers a great many areas and as in previous years, supports Singaporeans in a range of thoughtful ways: providing support for young families who wish to have children, working adults who need support to get better jobs, seniors to have better healthcare and quality of life in their later years and businesses as they cope with a range of disruptions.

These are all welcome measures and are possible because of Singapore’s strong fiscal position, thanks to decades of prudent financial management by successive generations of leaders.

In my speech though, I wish to focus on one area that troubles me most – the breakdown of the international world order that provided a stable backdrop for Singapore’s success since Independence.

For decades, an international rules-based order grounded in international law has underpinned global peace and prosperity. For small states like Singapore, this framework better ensured that sovereignty was respected, disputes are resolved peacefully and trade flowed freely. It gives small states like Singapore a measure of protection in a world which may otherwise have been dominated by power politics. Over the years, Singapore has consistently advocated for a rules-based multilateral system and respect for international law.

However, the global environment is rapidly evolving. We are witnessing heightened geopolitical rivalry, economic fragmentation and a growing willingness by some states to prioritise what they believe to be national interests over collective commitments. While international law remains indispensable, we must also be realistic and prepare for a world in which non-compliance is going to be more common and where major powers may not always abide by either the letter or the spirit of international commitments.

Recent events underscore this reality. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents a clear violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and the principle of territorial integrity. In the Middle East, the conflict triggered by Hamas’ attacks on Israel on and the subsequent war in Gaza have intensified regional instability and humanitarian crises and the findings of breaches of international law. In our own region, tensions in the South China Sea continue to test the strength of international maritime law.

The most dramatic changes in the last two years have probably been the position of the US. The main concern last year was the imposition of tariffs on allies and competitors alike. This year, the capture of the Venezuelan President was contrary to the peremptory norms against the use of force. The US plans to take Greenland put it on a collision course with its European allies and threatened to fracture the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), especially when it appeared that the US was considering the use of force to take Greenland in its earlier statements.

Together, these statements suggest that while international law remains vital, compliance can no longer be assumed or taken for granted. For small countries like Singapore, it is especially important for us to stay vigilant and prepared to deal with emerging threats and challenges.

During the Budget debate in 2022, I said that we need to remain committed to defence spending even during times of peace, and while there will be many demands for our spending and it will always be tempting to say we should cut defence spending in times of peace, that will be a mistake. I also said that we must continue to maintain and build good and deep relations as well as mutually beneficial economic and defence ties with as many countries as possible.

I remain firmly of that view. In this connection, I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to invest in Singapore’s defence, including physical warfare capabilities as well as cyber defence and counter-terrorism capabilities. A credible and technologically advanced defence force remains the bedrock of our sovereignty.

Beyond its defence capabilities, however, Singapore has very sensibly also adopted the strategy of diversifying its foreign relationships and defence relationships. On the security front, we maintain strong and longstanding defence ties with the US, including close training and operational cooperation. At the same time, we engage constructively with other nations, including China and ASEAN partners.

As for economic trade, Singapore currently has 28 Free Trade Agreements spanning Asia, Europe and the Americas. We are part of major regional agreements such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which bind countries to common standards and open markets. These agreements provide multiple avenues for growth and reduce over-dependence on any one market. They also signal Singapore’s continued commitment to open, rules-based trade despite global protectionist trends.

Going forward, we must continue to champion international law and multilateralism while widening and deepening our network of partnerships. I wish to make the following observations.

First, while we continue to advocate multilateralism, it is equally important to recognise that many international institutions were established in an era where great powers were more willing to cooperate consistently within established frameworks. Today, the legitimacy and effectiveness of these institutions are increasingly being challenged due to divergent national interests and competition.

Consider the United Nations. Although the UN Charter remains the foundational framework for international peace and security, the UN Security Council has been hampered by geopolitical divisions. When permanent members are in conflict or have opposing interests, collective action can be difficult to achieve. Collective action under the UN banner has not been possible in most of the conflicts today.

For a small nation like Singapore, we must recognise that when large powers do not cooperate within multilateral fora, the system becomes weaker and the norms which such international institutions uphold become more vulnerable. Small states have the most to lose when rules are eroded.

This leads me to my second observation which is about minilateralism. As the World Economic Forum puts it, minilateralism typically involves small groups of countries or organisations collaborating to solve shared problems. While multilateral institutions remain essential, and we must continue to support them, smaller groupings of like-minded states can move faster and more pragmatically when progress stalls at the global levels through smaller agreements.

Singapore has already demonstrated this approach. For example, in the digital domain, Singapore has pioneered the Digital Economy Agreements with trusted partners to establish common rules on cross-border data flows, cybersecurity and digital trade. Such agreements help shape global norms and position Singapore as a trusted digital hub.

Going forward, Singapore can continue to champion issue-based coalitions in areas such as green and sustainable finance, carbon markets and emerging technologies. Such coalitions complement and not replace the broader multilateral system.

Third, as a small nation, it is important that Singapore strengthen its capacity in emerging domains of competition.

Today, security is multi-dimensional and extends well beyond conventional military threats. Strategic contest between nations increasingly play out in domains such as cyberspace, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, space assets and the resilience of critical infrastructure. For example, cyberattacks can disrupt essential services including power generation and banking. Disinformation can erode social cohesion.

Singapore must therefore invest decisively in these emerging domains. Strengthening cyber defence capabilities, enhancing digital resilience across both public and private sectors, and building trusted AI governance frameworks which will be essential and which is envisioned by this Budget. By doing so, we not only protect ourselves but also enhance our relevance in the international arena.

Fourth, Singapore is in a unique position to play a bridging role in the new world order. In a world of intensifying major power rivalry, countries that can maintain credibility across divides become increasingly valuable. Singapore has long cultivated a reputation as a consistent, honest and trusted partner. We maintain strong defence and economic ties with the US, engage constructively with China, and remain firmly anchored in ASEAN. This balanced posture allows us to facilitate dialogue. Our consistency and credibility are our strategic assets.

Singapore’s role is not to choose sides in power competition. It is to maintain open channels with all while remaining firmly grounded in principles of sovereignty, peaceful dispute resolution, open trade and international law.

This means we must speak clearly when rules are violated, but avoid rhetoric which will unnecessarily escalate tensions. We must continue to deepen ties broadly, so that no single relationship defines our position in international relations.

Mr Speaker, while we cannot control the direction of the global order, our preparedness to navigate the global order is within our control. By combining principle with pragmatism, and openness with resilience, Singapore can continue to thrive, even in a more uncertain world.

Mr Henry Kwek.

Mr Speaker, over Chinese New Year, I spoke with residents in Kebun Baru about the Budget and the year ahead. What struck me about this year was how central AI has become in my conversation to them. Young graduates told me that good entry-level jobs and internships are now harder to come as companies re-organise themselves around AI.

A young academic volunteer told me a story he wanted to build a simple application. He got a quote from a local IT service company for $70,000 to build the application. He got frustrated, hired somebody from Vietnam at $10 per hour and spent the weekend to build that same application using AI agents.

I also spoke to a tech savvy SME entrepreneur who spent his breaks in between Chinese New Year house visits, building, orchestrating AI agents to automate many parts his back-office for his SME.

I met an accountant in her 50s, after watching a clip on the robotic wushu performance, turned to her family and asked, "What happens to my job?"

And I met an investor who told me that correlation between Nasdaq and AI is now very close. He would notice a big drop in one segment of the Nasdaq stock market and that usually comes after Anthropic introduces a new part, a new module, a new feature in the systems.

So, our people have sensed that AI has matured quickly and is now reshaping lives in ways that felt theoretical just a year ago.

Prime Minister Wong has decisively centered our Budget on AI, outlining a bold vision for Singapore in a changed, AI-charged world. I want to build on this vision by speaking on three areas where I believe we can move even faster: how the Government itself builds digital services with the world's leading AI firms helping us, how we can accelerate the IT service industry, and how we ensure our SME support reach more layers of our enterprise base.

First, how can the Government build more digital services with the world's leading AI companies' support.

Today, I believe that the Government e-services are still largely procured through traditional IT methods – where AI, if used at all, is bolted on rather than embedded from the outset. AI-centric development is fundamentally different: AI is integral to design, coding, testing and continuous improvement process. Services are faster to build, cheaper to maintain and adaptive rather than ageing between upgrade cycles.

I propose that this becomes the default methodology for all new Government services and to scale it as a whole-of-Government over time.

And we should not build this alone. Over 60 companies, including Google and Microsoft, have established AI Centres of Excellence here. These firms should not only help Singapore enterprises adopt AI; they should also be co-developing our AI-centric stacked deck itself, building together with the Public Service.

This is how we build a sovereign national AI system – something I spoke about in the last Budget debate – not from scratch at prohibitive cost, but through structured co-development with the world’s best, on our terms, anchored in our values. When the Government is merely a customer, our leverage is limited. When the Government is a sophisticated co-development partner – bringing deep domain knowledge expertise of public service delivery and regulatory complexity – we deepen their commitment to Singapore and build internal capability that stays here.

Beyond our own services, Government should revive the spirit of the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) with an AI-centric lens – working together with Prime Minister Wong’s four AI Mission sectors to identify common problems solvable through AI across different sectors and building shared solutions together with the industry.

Next, how we accelerate the IT services industry. Singapore's IT services industry – the firms that actually deliver technology projects across the public and private sectors – may not be adopting AI-centric development fast enough. These firms are the delivery layers between AI strategy and real world outcomes. If they do not transform, the strategy stays on paper.

This is not a talent problem. Our tech workers are ready – curious, hungry and well-educated. The bottleneck could be structural inertia within the IT services firms, compounded by the complexity of making AI-centric development enterprise-grade. Large companies have found it easier to continue with familiar methods while adding AI as a cosmetic layer.

Therefore, I propose a phased mandate: Government IT contracts should progressively require AI-centric development methods. New projects first, legacy contracts given longer runways and a clear three-to-five-year transition pathway.

This is not without precedent – we mandated Building Information Modeling (BIM) adoption in the construction industry and we can transform that. When the Singapore Government becomes the driver of demand, industry follows.

Alongside the mandate, the Government should also transfer its frameworks and playbooks to polytechnics, universities and IT service firms. And over time, Singapore's AI-centric methodology will not just become a public sector asset but something that will drive industry capability.

Third, our SME support can be more differentiated. When it comes to AI, two groups are ready to move, and they need different support.

The first group are SMEs led by founders with strong technology backgrounds like the SME entrepreneur I mentioned about – programming using AI agents over Chinese New Year. For these founders, the barriers to scale have collapsed. They understand understand AI and can now grow at speeds previously requiring the capital and headcount of a much larger enterprise.

Yet our bespoke innovation grants have traditionally been reserved for larger companies. And I urge the Government to open these grants to tech-capable SMEs – these are Singapore's next generation of high-tech growth.

The second group are conventional SMEs that need help adopting AI in day-to-day operations. Here, Prime Minister Wong's expanded PSG is the right instrument. But the approved vendor list today are very traditional tech companies. Over time, there will be a growing tier of AI-centric firms delivering accounting, payroll, marketing services or products. I hope the Government can consider actively onboarding these firms as PSG-approved vendors and co-fund the transition cost so that conventional SMEs can access them quickly.

Taken altogether, some will argue that the AI levels the playing field against Singapore. In a narrow sense, they are right – a talented developer anywhere, armed with enough AI tools and call code credits, can generate entire applications overnight. On a pure cost, we were never going to win this race. But this is the wrong race to run.

The Economic Development Board (EDB) has long described Singapore's value proposition as Trust, Knowledge and Connectivity. AI-centric development does not erode this advantage – it amplifies them.

On trust: in an AI-centric world, where AI agents transact and AI systems make decisions, trust becomes the most precious commodity in the digital economy. Businesses will site AI operations where they trust the legal framework and the Government behind them and Singapore has spent decades building exactly this trust.

On knowledge: the tacit knowledge – the kind that cannot be Googled or prompted – lives in the relationships and expertise of the people based here. AI can accelerate the application of our knowledge.

On connectivity: we have at least seven distinct global hubs – aviation, shipping, regional headquarters, advanced manufacturing, biotech, chemicals, electronics, and finance – co-located on 700 square kilometres.

The collaboration density, between the hubs themselves and the world they connect to, is something no amount of digital connectivity can replicate. In an AI-centric economy, where the most valuable innovations emerge at the intersection of industries, this co-location is a profound and durable.

If we move fast enough, if we adopt AI-centric development in Government, bring our IT services industry with us and equip many layers of our SME industry, AI gives us the chance to not just manage our constraints but re-invent our economy on foundations that took decades to build, and that no competitor can replicate overnight.

Mr Speaker, let me now speak briefly on our Public Service Media. The advantages I have described – Trust, Knowledge and Connectivity – do not sustain themselves. They require institutions to uphold them.

Sometime ago, I had a chat with our Minister Josephine Teo who leads Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), she describes our Public Service Media as Singapore's truth infrastructure. I would go further than that. I would say that our Public Service Media are not just Singapore's truth infrastructure but also our trust infrastructure. The Straits Times has a place in the hearts of most of our people. Zaobao is already the most respected international Chinese-language outlet globally. CNA commands with credibility far beyond our shores and with strategic investment, The Business Times could become the Financial Times of Southeast Asia. In an age of AI-generated disinformation, they stand between our people and a manipulated information space. I urge the Government to make sure that they are adequately and sustainably funded, and that our media professionals find a compelling future in them. Because our media is a source of our trust, and is a key voice of our soft power.

My last point is about a home for every family. A nation's ambition is not only credible if people feel secure in the most basic of things and I commend the Ministry of National Development (MND) for continuing to build housing quickly.

There is one group that I would like to speak up for today, which is the sandwiched-class families with decent incomes who could comfortably service a mortgage but cannot secure loans from banks and Housing and Development Board (HDB).

Their incomes are too high for public rental, and Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) requires a waiting Build-To-Order (BTO). They are left paying high rental rates, with no clear pathways of getting their roof over their heads somewhere.

I understand that this group have a lot of complexities and it is not due to any one source of difficulty that they face, but I hope the Government can consider a targeted programme, like how we invented Fresh Start for people in rental estate but the targeted programme helps this group that I mentioned with some of the following features: selective offering of HDB loans, Government-backed mortgage guarantees with maybe a bank like DBS, a structured pathway for BTOs where demonstrated income stability unlocks eligibility, or access to long-term affordable rental while they rebuild credit.

The gap is real, and these families deserve a pathway.

Let me conclude. Mr Speaker, Budget 2026 reminds me of the many Budget discussions and debates we had during COVID. Then, the rest of the world were dealing with COVID. But our Budget not just helped us deal with COVID but also prepared Singapore to emerge stronger together from COVID.

Today, just look at the headlines. The world, and even the major powers, are bogged down by geopolitical conflict, internal disputes and disarrays, and trade or even economic wars. In marked contrast, here in this Parliament, we are discussing a future forward Budget that not just responds to a changed world but also prepare ourselves to emerge stronger together in this AI-charged world. Therefore, Mr Speaker, this Budget deserves our full support.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, the 2026 Budget Statement arrives at the moment of profound transformation. Globally, we are navigating tectonic shifts in security, trade and technology, while domestically our workforce is feeling the weight of disruption alongside continuing cost of living pressures.

The Prime Minister describes our current fiscal position as fortunate, citing a revised FY2025 overall fiscal position that has resulted in a surplus of $15.1 billion. This is attributed largely to the fund-loading of investments and a significant revenue surge.

Yet for many Singaporeans and local small businesses, this success feels distant. More than 2,400 retail food establishments closed last year. Youths under 30 are experiencing unemployment rates, almost double the national average.

As the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) highlighted, we are witnessing a two-speed economy despite positive aggregate macro-economic data, local SMEs find themselves squeezed by a perfect storm of rising and operating costs and weaker domestic demand.

ASME pointed to a productivity and contribution imbalance: large enterprises contribute 74% of the nation's nominal value-added even though they employed just 30% of the national workforce; in contrast, micro and small enterprises contribute only 11% of the value-added despite employing 45% of the national workforce. This revealed a staggering labour productivity gap. Since wage growth is only sustainable when backed by productivity, when micro and small enterprises are stuck in a low productivity second speed, it becomes supremely challenging for them to offer the competitive salaries needed to combat the rising cost of living.

Furthermore, as we look toward a future shaped by rapid AI integration and automation, we must confront the risk of structural jobless growth where corporate profits and GDP continue to growth much faster than the labour market. We must put our huge fiscal surpluses to use to support and empower the workers and sectors that find themselves stuck in this slow growth track. It is only by doing so that we can secure the necessary social licence for continued high growth strategies in elite sectors. When the average Singaporean sees tangible structural benefits from these outsized gains, rather than rising inequality, it fosters the public trust and political consensus required to maintain our open and competitive economic model.

The House should examine the Government's recurring pattern of overly conservative fiscal projections. The revised FY2025 surplus of $15.1 billion is more than doubled the original estimate of $6.81 billion. This $8.26 billion discrepancy is not an isolated incident. It is part of a trend where projected deficits regularly transform into healthy surpluses. While the Government points to the volatility of tax revenue, this consistent underestimation raises fundamental questions of whether the Government is unnecessarily hoarding funds. We need more accurate forecasting that ensures our nation's abundance, benefits current generations as much as future generations.

This fiscal abundance also raises questions about the Government's tax strategies. With surpluses of well over $1 billion in all but one of the last five years, totalling $22 billion, should we re-evaluate the necessity of the GST hike? The Government said that the GST hike was meant to fund the increased healthcare spending in an ageing society. But the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) revised FY2025 Operating Expenditure was $305 million lower as estimated, mainly due to lower than projecting funding needs for public healthcare institutions. Will the Government be revising its projections for future increases in healthcare expenditure?

True prudence is not just about amassing vast fiscal buffers. This is about balancing future security with the current needs of our people. Unnecessary taxation drains liquidity from households upfront, creating a dependency on Government handouts, rather than fostering genuine financial independence. Furthermore, it acts as a handbrake on economic growth by constraining household spending.

In 2025, vehicle quota premium collections were 31% overestimates, reaching $8.66 billion. The Certificate of Entitlement (COE) was a primary driver of our massive surplus and the Government expects even more next year, projecting $9.42 billion in revenue.

I am concerned that the Government may be reliant on high vehicle costs to anchor its fiscal position. This could create a perverse incentive to allow the COE to remain high and result inertia against necessary reforms to the COE system, which my hon friend Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, the MP for Sengkang had called for in his Adjournment Motion last September.

There are other significant revenue spikes that I seek clarification from the Minister.

Revenue from licences and permits has searched by $2.08 billion, a 29% increase from the original estimate to the revised FY2025 figure of $9.23 billion. According to MOF's analysis of revenue and expenditure 2026, the transition to the new Singapore Public Sector Chart of Accounts makes year-on-year comparison for this item not meaningful due to changes in scope. However, this accounting reclassification alone does not explain why the Government collected $2 billion more than it told the House that it would just a year ago. Can the Minister clarify what specific licences or permits drove this increase and whether this represents a permanent increase in a regulatory burden, borne by our households and businesses?

While reclassification of the FY2025 figures is promised for FY2027, was there some difficulty in providing it in this year so that Parliament could probably track spending changes for this debate? Without a clear bridge between the old and new systems, there is a risk of losing oversight of expenditure growth.

Turning to technology, our AI roadmap must look beyond white-collar co-pilots. To ensure an inclusive social compact, we must deploy physical AI for blue-collar workers in manufacturing and logistics, for example. This could include tools like wearable haptic sensors that alert workers to ergonomic risks to prevent long-term injury or collaborative robots, to assist with heavy lifting on the factory floor.

Furthermore, AI can be a powerful tool for blue-collar workers who may struggle with English Language constraints. It can translate vernacular dictation into professional English documentation in real time, allowing workers to focus on their technical expertise rather than linguistic hurdles. These tools enable productivity gains that lead to enhance wages and reduce physical strain for those on the front lines. AI should be an equaliser that elevates technical mastery, not a wish that separates our workforce.

The Government has also allowed 400% tax deductions on AI expenses. I propose that these should include corporate AI subscriptions to give workers access to corporate AI tools to improve their daily productivity while keeping company data secure. Giving every worker a digital assistant should be a baseline goal for our nation that aspires to be an AI leader. This ensures that the benefits of the technology are shared by employee and employer alike.

Regarding our social safety net, a gap remains for the sandwiched generation, which falls just outside existing means testing thresholds. We need a more holistic means testing model that looks not just at gross income alone but disposable income after essential expenses are deducted. For example, a household earning $9,000 with special needs children or elderly parents requiring chronic care, may be functionally less wealthy than a household earning $3,000 with no such burdens.

Furthermore, I urge a shift towards individual base assessments for our seniors to better protect their dignity. No senior should ever be forced to plead with an estranged adult child for financial support simply because that child's income is bundled into the per capita household income calculation. When subsidies are tied to the disclosure of a child's salary, we leave vulnerable seniors at the mercy of strained family dynamics. Our social safety net should be anchored more to a senior's individual income instead of their children's, to ensure they receive the care and support that they need.

MTI's development expenditures is estimated to double to $9.24 billion in FY2026, which is an increase of $4.32 billion in a single year. While the Government says this increase is mainly due to initiatives to enhance Singapore's economic competitiveness in an uncertain global environment, can the Minister shed more light on a specific milestone this money is expected to achieve? For comparison, the entire development budget for the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is a mere fraction of this, at just $260 million.

There seems to be a disconnect between the Government's own risk assessment and its fiscal response. The Budget Statement identifies significant risks from an AI benefits reassessment and global trade tensions. Yet, the fiscal impulse of Budget 2026 is only 0.6% of GDP. This stance appears rather passive. If the risk of job displacement and investment decline is as real as the Government acknowledges, our fiscal injection should be more robust and proactive, particularly when we are riding on a huge surplus from the previous year. We should be building more buffers for our workers now rather than reacting after the displacement begins.

Finally, on the matter of security, the Prime Minister stated that defence spending will remain at 3% of GDP. Can I ask if this includes the cybersecurity budgets across the Government, including those under the Cyber Security Agency for the protection of critical information infrastructure? With the rise of in sophisticated cyberattacks and hostile information campaigns, it is essential to know the true allocation of security resources.

Mr Speaker, a budget is more than just a balance sheet. It is a statement of our national values and priorities. We cannot be a nation that celebrates multibillion dollar surpluses while our middle-income families are squeezed, our seniors fear being a financial burden on their children and our workers worry about a digital future that feels out of reach. Let us build a social compact that does not just manage growth but shares it fairly and transparently. We should measure our success not by the absolute size of our reserves, but by the security, dignity and peace of mind of every Singaporean. Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Victor Lye.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of Budget 2026. I will speak about Singapore as a networked economy with trust as our new factor of production.

Economists have studied the classic factors of production, land, labour, capital and later adding entrepreneurship in the 1800s. In this uncertain fragmenting world and AI acceleration, I see a new factor of production – trust.

Trust is intangible. Yet, it behaves like infrastructure. Trust enables flows – capital, data, talent, goods, decisions. Trust increases resilience to shocks. Trust is the reliability premium that allows counterparties to transact, coordinate and commit to actions at scale, even in the face of uncertainty. For Singapore, as a small city-state, this is and should be our competitive advantage.

In 1965, our population was a mere 1.9 million. Today, as a first world nation, we have 3.7 million Singaporeans, 4.2 million if we include Permanent Residents. Singapore is small. Compare this to Tokyo, a city, 37 million people; Delhi, 36 million people; Shanghai, 21 million people; London, 10 million people; New York, eight million people – you get the picture. Even Kuala Lumpur and many of our Asian capitals/cities have a few times multiple, more people than Singapore. Large countries within hinterlands can rely on internal markets, domestic, resources, national industrial stacks.

Singapore has no hinterland. Instead, our hinterland must be how deeply we connect to the rest of the world. I see Singapore therefore as a networked economy, where trust becomes the connective tissue that allows a small node like Singapore to orchestrate value across a much larger space. To be a successful networked economy in this globally fragmented and accelerating AI world, trust becomes our factor of production, our competitive advantage.

Budget 2026 identifies four AI missions – finance, health, advanced manufacturing and connectivity. Seen through the lens of trust, these missions are strategic growth pathways.

In finance, AI can position Singapore as the world's most trusted digital custodian enabling secure asset verification, counterparty validation and trusted trading ecosystems. In health, Singapore can be a trusted hub for clinical trials, diagnostics and genomic innovation. In advanced manufacturing, by anchoring intellectual property with trust, Singapore can embed itself in high value global supply chains. Lastly, connectivity. For example, as a port, we cannot just compete by the number of boxes we move. We must use AI to pivot from moving boxes to become trusted coordinator, the operating system that optimises flows across ports, even across geopolitical boundaries.

Mr Speaker, ultimately, Budget 2026 AI Missions must translate into real benefits for our people. When we are the trusted node in supply chains, essential good for Singaporeans continue to flow even during crises. We can create trust-centric jobs, coordinating systems, validating data, ensuring digital security. In an AI driven world, Singaporeans can become that human layer of trust, providing empathy and compassion, on top of credibility and judgement which AI cannot.

Trust can be our new fact of production, our competitive advantage for a small city state, a network economy. Budget 2026 begins this journey. I propose three areas for consideration.

One, institutionalise trust infrastructure. Why not develop regulatory sandboxes where AI innovations are tested and centered in Singapore using our trusted governance frameworks? In this way, Singapore exports trusted governance alongside technology.

Two, create global trust credentials to enable not just Singaporeans or Singapore firms but also foreign companies and professionals to carry trusted Singapore verified credentials, demonstrating compliance, skills and experience.

Three, develop trusted connectivity standards in sectors important to Singapore such as maritime, aviation and digital trade. Singapore can develop trusted coordination standards. Stewardship of such standards creates relevance and trust for others to deal with us Singapore.

Mr Speaker, as a small city state, Singapore cannot out bill the large countries. We cannot outnumber the world. With the fragmenting world and AI acceleration, we can however, be that beacon of trust for the world as a networked economy.

When the world asks: "Who can we work with?", "Who can we rely on?", "Who can coordinate these critical systems for the world?", let the answer be Singapore. Sir, I support Budget 2026.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm looking at human capital ecosystem strategies. In my work, I have seen how capital relocates amidst volatility, how labour markets adjust when technology shifts and how nations either manage transition wisely or struggle when they do not.

My reaction to Budget 2026 is this: Singapore’s budget surplus reflects global volatility and our strategic credibility. In a fractured world, capital flows toward stability, predictability and the rule of law. That is a vote of confidence for Singapore.

I welcome the Government’s steady fiscal discipline. At a time when many countries wrestle with debts and deficits, Singapore’s prudence is an asset. It gives us room to act, credibility to lead and options in uncertainty. But volatility-driven gains are not permanent gains. Cyclical surpluses are not structural revenues.

In a more dangerous world, fiscal strength is national defence. Our buffers are not excesses, they are strategic insurance. They safeguard our sovereignty, resilience and freedom of action.

As Chair of the Defence and Foreign Affairs GPC, I say this with conviction: fiscal resilience is strategic capability. It ensures we are not forced into decisions by constraints. It preserves our strategic autonomy when circumstances demand it.

At the same time, given the current surplus position, perhaps we can signal stability by avoiding further tax increases in the near term. I recognise that Government will, when necessary, need to raise revenue. But where new measures are introduced, they should be calibrated carefully and remain progressive. Perhaps there should be no additional effective burden on lower-income households and revenue adjustments should be designed with cost pressures firmly in mind.

This is not to question earlier fiscal decisions. It is simply to say: where space exists, we should use it to cushion households and strengthen trust. Because trust in fiscal policy underpins trust in everything else.

And trust must also underpin our AI transition. The AI transformation is not theoretical. It is structural, it is global and it is accelerating.

Recent analysis from technologists observing the frontier makes this clear. Model performance is not merely improving incrementally, it is compounding. Tasks that required research teams a year ago can now be done in weeks. Tasks that required weeks can now be done in hours. What appears gradual suddenly crosses a threshold and becomes transformational.

AI is no longer assisting humans at the edges. AI is helping to build the next AI. Engineers use AI to write code, debug systems, test approaches and accelerate research cycles. But the recent AI coding revolution does not stop at engineers and programmers, because code is essentially logic and workflow. And it is enterprise logic and workflow that is the fundamental basis of many knowledge jobs. This means that AI's ability to generate code and write software autonomously could eventually have greater implications on all knowledge workers, not just programmers.

When improvements accelerate the next round of improvements, change does not move in a straight line. It begins to move like a wave.

Last week, I met a young Singaporean named Amir outside a tuition centre in Yio Chu Kang. He was waiting for his sister. In his hand was a neatly printed curriculum vitae (CV). Three pages. Strong verbs. Clean formatting. I asked whether he had hired a professional writer. He laughed and said, “No, I used an AI tool to help me. It rewrote my CV. It drafted cover letters. It even suggested interview answers.” Then he paused. “But if AI can write my CV better than I can,” he said quietly, “what happens when it can do my job better than me?” He was not dramatic, he was also not angry. He was simply uncertain. That uncertainty is what many Singaporeans feel.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates roughly 40% of jobs globally are exposed to AI. In advanced economies, exposure approaches 60%. Goldman Sachs estimates generative AI could affect work equivalent to 300 million full-time roles. These are not alarmist numbers. These are structural signals.

Stanford Prof Erik Brynjolfsson recently argued that the long-awaited AI productivity take-off may now be visible. In the US, payroll growth was revised downward by over 400,000 jobs even as GDP grew 3.7% in the fourth quarter. Output held steady while labour input declined. That is the hallmark of productivity growth.

Productivity rose about 2.7% in 2025, nearly double the previous decade’s pace. First comes investment, then re-organisation, then, if we get it right, harvest. But harvest is uneven. Some firms adapt faster, some sectors benefit earlier, others face displacement sooner. And here is the elephant in the room. Mid-career workers are already feeling automation’s pressure. The accountant whose reconciliation tasks are automated, the marketing manager whose drafting work is compressed into minutes, the operations executive whose reporting is replaced by dashboards.

These are not statistics. These are parents, caregivers and Singaporeans with responsibilities. They want to remain useful, valued and respected in their work.

Productivity can rise even as some workers experience displacement. Our task is not to deny disruption. It is to govern it. Allow me to group my proposals into three themes.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, measure what matters. AI Missions deserve praise, but alongside ambition, we need measurable labour outcomes. What three to five key performance indicators will be published annually that are explicitly job linked? For example, net new roles created, wage uplift achieved, time to redeployment, share of SMEs scaling AI beyond pilots. If this transformation is national, its scorecard must be national and human.

AI Champions must not become theatre. What is the gating bar? It should include data readiness, genuine process redesign, measurable productivity gains and meaningful workforce upgrading. And if firms cannot demonstrate transformation beyond pilot projects within a defined period, support should be reviewed and if necessary, withdrawn.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, protect pathways. Globally, the first wave is not mass layoffs but junior tasks disappearing: drafting, summarising, first-pass analysis. Will AI Mission partners redesign entry-level pathways so that young Singaporeans still get a real first job, real mentorship and real responsibility, even as AI takes over routine tasks?

The future belongs to “AI conductors”, not merely “AI users”. Our juniors must learn to curate, steer and verify AI outputs. The competitive advantage is not pressing “generate.” It is about asking the right questions and judging the answers. If we lose the first job pathway and if our juniors never get the chance to learn how to be "AI conductors", we lose the future workforce.

For mid-career Singaporeans, the fear is not only unemployment, but stagnation and even decline. Will AI support be conditional on job redesign and wage progression commitments? If gains flow only to the margins and management, social cohesion erodes. Six months of premium AI tools must not become tokenism. Access is not mastery. How will we measure demonstrable skill acquisition through portfolios, assessed projects and recognised credentials. Workers need employability, not just exposure.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, build shared capability and trust. Do SMEs have sufficient compute and infrastructure? Will we provide shared credits, secure data environments and reference architectures so that they can compete responsibly? Without shared capability, we risk an AI divide.

In regulatory sandboxes, who bears the liability? When AI affects hiring or evaluation, what is the audit framework? Speed without accountability breeds backlash. And how do we remain trusted without slowing deployment?

What is the AI Council’s explicit speed-with-safety model? This should include: tiered risk categories, standardised evaluation, fast-track approvals for low-risk use. Trust must not become friction. Speed must not become recklessness.

Will the Government lead by example? Will the public sector pair AI adoption with systematic job redesign and publish measurable outcomes?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, two centuries ago, in the English Midlands, groups of skilled textile workers gathered at night. They broke into mills and smashed the mechanical looms, the industrial weaving machines that automated the production of cloth, because they believed those machines would destroy their livelihoods. These workers came to be known as the Luddites. They were not ignorant men. They were craftsmen, fathers and providers who feared that mechanisation would render their skills obsolete.

History remembers them as opponents of progress. But here is the twist. The looms did not destroy prosperity, they transformed it. Industrialisation was painful and disruptive, but the societies that adapted built new industries, new skills and eventually a broader middle class.

The lesson is not that technological change is painless. It is that refusing to prepare does not preserve dignity, preparing does. AI is technological change. It is not to be feared. It is not to be ignored. It is to be governed.

But AI moves at digital speed. The Luddites had decades. We may only have years, perhaps only months. History also warns us that when ownership concentrates and meaningful work disappears, inequality hardens. If AI disruption results in productive assets concentrated in a few hands while working people are excluded from opportunity, social strain follows.

But that outcome is not inevitable. Every major technological disruption has also created renewal. AI can expand opportunity if directed wisely. That means preparing our workforce today. It means equipping our workforce tomorrow. It means being prepared to recalibrate policy as the technology evolves.

The future will remain uncertain. But this Government does not sugar-coat reality. The PAP has never shied away from harsh truths. We will be honest about the challenges on the ground. We will be honest that some jobs will change. We will be honest that some roles will disappear. And we will be honest that the transition will not be easy.

But we will also be clear about this: we are here to walk with Singaporeans through the tough times.

Let me return to Amir. When I saw him again, he had enrolled in a course. He was no longer asking what AI could do for him. He was asking what he could become. “The tool is not the point,” his instructor told him. “Learning how to think is the point.” “I realised,” Amir said, “that I needed to level up.”

Mr Speaker, that is the future we must design. Not a future where workers are discarded. Not a future where productivity rises but trust falls. But a future where productivity funds mobility and automation finances upgrading.

If we prepare honestly, govern wisely and act courageously, Singapore will not merely endure this wave of change. We will rise with it. If we get this right, Singapore will not merely adopt AI. We will guide it. We will shape it. We will humanise it. And together, we will shape the future of Singapore. I support the Budget.

Assoc Prof Terence Ho.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join the debate. I would first like to congratulate the Prime Minister and his team on the forward looking and comprehensive Budget that speaks to the wide-ranging needs of our economy and society. I will make some broad remarks on the Government's fiscal position and spending and use the rest of my speech to outline four priorities that I believe are critical for Singapore's future.

As many have observed, what stood out in this year's Budget Statement is the sizeable surplus that the Government is expecting for FY2025, and the positive fiscal outlook in FY2026 and beyond. Looking around the world today, a strong fiscal position is both rare and enviable. Fiscal strength allows for policy optionality and gives confidence that the Government has the resources to carry out its policy agenda.

As a public policy academic, I often speak to visiting delegations of public officials from other countries. Many are eager to learn how Singapore has accumulated reserves and achieved such a healthy fiscal position, and they want to learn how their countries too can strengthen the public finances.

However, the accumulation of our reserves was more or less unique to our circumstances, enabled by a confluence of historical factors as Singapore successfully rode the early wave of globalisation. This is not easily replicable by other countries today, nor can the Singapore Government expect to run large surpluses every year as spending needs grow.

The question then is how the Government can best deploy the fiscal resources at its disposal today. Should the Government set them aside for a rainy day by replenishing the reserves, earning financial returns in anticipation of future spending needs and exigencies, or should we invest in our earning capacity – in infrastructure capabilities and human capital? Or should we strengthen social support dealing with the challenges we face here and now, which is so important for a sense of assurance and solidarity as a nation?

We must, of course, do all these. The question is one of balance and I think there is a judicious mix of each in this year's Budget, which will allow us to address immediate challenges while positioning Singapore well for the future.

Singapore is doing fairly well as a nation. As an optimist, I am inclined to see the glass is half full rather than half empty. One could even say that for Singapore, the glass is more than half full. But even if the glass is, say, three quarters full, we cannot be complacent as the shortfall represents Singaporeans who are struggling or insecure. Gaps matter even in a nation that is doing well overall because social cohesion depends not on averages but on those at the margins.

What we do to support fellow citizens could determine whether we remain a cohesive society or become one that is divided along socio-economic lines. As a nation, we need to address the gaps with boldness and urgency, and the willingness to transcend existing policy paradigms, because of the scale of the challenges we face, spanning the costs of living, wealth disparities, workforce disruption and population ageing.

I will touch on four areas I think need our attention and resources. They form the acronym "FEAT" – "F" for future readiness, "E" for empowerment, "A" for assurance and "T" for togetherness. These priorities are mutually reinforcing. Future readiness creates opportunities. Empowerment enables Singaporeans to seize these opportunities. Assurance provides the confidence to navigate change and Togetherness sustains the trust that underpins our shared progress.

Let me begin with future readiness.

This year's Budget focuses on frontier technologies, notably how Singapore can build a competitive, AI-enabled economy. We are strengthening our security against new threats, expanding our infrastructure capacity ahead of time and building capabilities in areas such as nuclear energy, to give us more options.

In an uncertain world, adaptation matters more than prediction. This is important, not just at the national level but also for organisations and individuals. I am glad that firms will receive support to use AI to transform their business through the new Champions of AI programme and will also be able to tap the enhanced Enterprise Innovation Scheme and the PSG. I look forward to more details of these schemes.

How firms rework business processes will be critical, whether they use AI to augment or to replace human contribution. There is a need to support firms in building capabilities for human-centric job redesign. Fundamentally, too, we will need to redesign jobs so that the jobs in demand are also the jobs that Singaporeans aspire to do. I will elaborate on this at the MOM COS debate.

Ultimately, preparing for the future is an individual responsibility as well. It requires a growth mindset. We are not defined by our Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) score or "O" level grades, but by our willingness to learn throughout life.

Last year, I took part in an SG60 commemorative book project entitled "Redefining Singapore". One of the contributors to the book, Mr Mohammad Saleem, overcame a troubled youth to become the founder of a social enterprise that provides life coaching. Drawing on his own life experiences, Mr Saleem contributed one of the best chapters of the book. It was deeply inspiring and beautifully written. In both his writing and speaking, Mr Saleem stands out, even among the many eminent contributors to the book. His life story is a testament to the potential that is in each of us and how far we can go if we keep learning and improving ourselves.

The second priority I would like to highlight is to empower Singaporeans to pursue excellence. Singapore is where it is today because generations of Singaporeans gave of their best, pursuing excellence in what they did. While we are more comfortable and affluent today, we cannot afford to lose this drive for excellence and, along with it, our society's dynamism and verve. Affluence does not mean we grow soft as a people. Instead, we should think of our resources as an enabler, a springboard to greater achievement.

I am not referring to excellence that is narrowly defined, nor am I asserting that the pursuit of excellence should be at the expense of physical or mental well-being. In fact, our society ought to have a place for some who run faster and others who prefer a slower pace, recognising that people at different stages of life and career will have different priorities.

But as a society, we need a critical mass of highly motivated people with the hunger and drive to succeed. This is not about hyper-competition but about setting high standards for ourselves, not being satisfied with the status quo but pushing the boundaries of possibility, often through collaboration with others.

I know a teenager who constantly challenges his own limits, whether it is learning mathematics, programming, playing music or learning to juggle. Whenever he has mastered something, he was always on to the next target. His intrinsic motivation stems from curiosity, challenge and purpose, rather than extrinsic rewards. I hope this kind of spirit will be pervasive among our youths. We must encourage and empower Singaporeans to be the best each of us can be, whether in creative, sporting or academic pursuits, or in serving the community.

In sharing about Singapore's social policy with visitors, I often describe Singapore as a social investment state, where social policy is geared towards education and skills development to enable people to earn a good living. This includes significant investment in our national schools and preschools, as well as in lifelong learning.

Despite these efforts, we know the playing field is not level. Children from affluent families have access to private tuition and enrichment programmes spanning both academic and non-academic domains. The question is whether, as a society, we can provide even more resources and opportunities for children from lower-income or disadvantaged households. The idea is not to fuel an education arms race, but to expand equitable access to programmes that are truly helpful in nurturing passion and potential.

One possibility is to liberalise the use of Edusave to cover high-quality, non-school-based enrichment activities. To narrow the opportunity gap, the Government could provide children from lower-income families with additional support via the Child Development or Edusave accounts – in other words, make Government contributions to these accounts progressive. Donors could also be encouraged to top up the accounts of less well-off children identified by schools or community organisations with matching funding from the Government in the spirit of a "we first" society.

It is important to provide opportunities, not just during the schooling years, but also into working life and it is not just the Government's responsibility. I know the chief executive officer of a private equity firm who, instead of only hiring top graduates from brand name universities, makes it a point to give opportunities to those from modest family backgrounds and less well-known institutions. A number of those he has recruited and mentored have gone on to become successful investment professionals. Their success illustrates how opportunity, mentoring and the willingness to look beyond credentials can unlock potential that might otherwise remain untapped.

Empowerment enables social mobility and is vital for a fair society. There is also tremendous benefit to society when more have the opportunity to fully realise their potential.

Next, I will talk about strengthening assurance and social inclusion. Singapore is an expensive city, but it must never become an excluding one. The cost of living will always be high because land is scarce and incomes generally high. Prices are high because of supply and demand. Many shops and eateries set prices according to what most Singaporeans can afford. We must therefore ensure that those who are less well-off are not excluded from mainstream life in Singapore, for instance, by having to forgo social gatherings because they feel they cannot afford to pay for a meal or a shared activity.

The past two decades have seen many groundbreaking policy innovations to strengthen social support and assurance, but we must go further because there is still an assurance gap for many Singaporeans. The aim must be for citizens to feel a greater sense of financial assurance. This is necessary for our social compact, so that we can face challenges together with confidence. It is also a pre-requisite for public support for Singapore to remain an open economy.

There are many ways to strengthen assurance and support, but each comes with trade-offs. If the Government holds down prices or rents, this may distort price signals and reduce market efficiency. If the Government mandates high wage floors, this may raise business costs and crimp employment. The Government could provide more direct support to the less well-off via social transfers, but this would incur fiscal costs and may affect incentives to work.

This is not to suggest that we do nothing but rather to highlight that strengthening assurance inevitably involves trade-offs. Greater support may entail fiscal costs or modest efficiency losses but the society that provides confidence and dignity to its citizens is ultimately more resilient and cohesive.

I have three suggestions for social policy.

The first is to reframe or reposition CDC vouchers. Singaporeans are, by now, very familiar with CDC vouchers, which we have received yearly since 2021. If I am not wrong, the value of CDC vouchers, SG60 vouchers and LifeSG credits announced in last year's Budget amounted to over $3 billion. However, the vouchers also appear to some as mere band aid for the cost of living, something that is neither sustainable nor targeted.

I take a different view. I see a useful role for vouchers and credits in our social support system, complementing structural or permanent transfers, such as the Workfare Income Supplement, Silver Support Scheme, the GST voucher, along with healthcare and housing subsidies. The advantage of vouchers is that they can be sized according to needs. For instance, more can be given when inflation is high and cost of living pressures are elevated, and when more fiscal resources are available, I believe that with a reframing, the role of the vouchers would be better appreciated by Singaporeans as a form of support that is anchored in the shared ownership of Singapore's success. The vouchers and credits could be repositioned as a social dividend, an annual sum given to citizens that signifies that they have a stake in the country and its collective wealth.

The Government can determine the size of the dividend it declares each year, depending on prevailing fiscal and economic conditions. The dividend should be universal and progressive, meaning that everyone receives something, while the less well-off receive more. A social dividend would be a form of social support that compliments the structural transfers, is flexible in size and sends a clear message of solidarity and inclusion. This reframing would shift the narrative from short-term relief to shared participation and in national progress.

The second suggestion is to give low-income households part of the social dividend in income-generating assets and securities, beyond just cash and vouchers. The Government has already adopted various forms of asset-based social policy. These include the CPF system to build up savings, the home ownership policy that has given most Singaporeans valuable housing equity and periodic CPF top-ups for those with less retirement savings.

The Government could consider broadening the types of transfers to include income-generating assets, such as mutual funds. This could be designed so that recipients would not be allowed to sell these assets within a certain vesting period and can earn a stream of income from them over time. Asset-based transfers can strengthen financial resilience and foster a shift in mindset, from short-term spending to long-term wealth building and stewardship. Provided they are carefully designed to manage market risk and complexity, such measures offer a complementary pathway to narrow wealth gaps and broaden participation in asset ownership.

Third, we need a sharper focus on affordability as a policy objective vital to social inclusion. There are already affordability indicators for public housing, such as the ratio of new flat prices to incomes; and for healthcare, the share of out-of-pocket expenditure in total health spending. We could likewise track the percentage of households whose expenditure on food, utilities and other essential goods and services exceeds a certain proportion of their income.

Publishing a concise set of indicators covering housing, healthcare and essential consumption would deepen public understanding of cost pressures, and support evidence-based adjustments when needed. It is particularly important that low-income Singaporeans have sufficient consumption choices, so that they can participate fully in society. It is worth thinking about how this, too, can be tracked as an indicator of how inclusive our society is.

Finally, the "T" in "FEAT" stands for togetherness. This, I believe, will be the single most important determinants of Singapore's future. Togetherness is not merely a sentiment, but the culture and practice of respect, trust and shared responsibility within society.

As a small nation at a time of geopolitical flux, we cannot afford to be divided along partisan lines, ideology or any other societal fault lines. Often, such division starts with disrespect and then progress to denigrating those whose views or practices are different from ours. And very soon, people cannot work with one another on the basis of ideology, politics or worldview, and once the genie is out of the bottle, it is very hard to put it back in.

If Singapore gets mired in partisan battles or culture wars like what we observe in other countries, we could win our individual battles but lose the war. Our fiercest fights would be with one another rather than against external threats.

Suppose in a hypothetical country, two-thirds of the population support a party or ideology and one-third support a rival, and suppose in the extreme, the two sides spend all the time and resources trying to negate the efforts of the other side. The net strength of this hypothetical country would be two-thirds minus one-third, but if the country is united, then it is two-thirds plus one-third, or perhaps even more than the sum of its parts.

As Singaporeans, we must recognise and affirm that there is more that we have in common than what divides us. We must do everything we can to nurture a strong middle ground of citizens who are fair-minded and respectful towards one another, a middle ground that is not reflexive, but reflective in our approach to affairs in the public square.

Particularly at this time of severe geopolitical turbulence, Singaporeans must close ranks if we are to survive and prosper, and not be swept away by external tides. If we succeed in doing so, we will truly be an exceptional society. And this, I believe, would be the greatest competitive advantage for Singapore in a world of deeply divided societies.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, a budget reflects the values and priorities of a society. Ultimately, what matters most is how we care for the vulnerable among us, how we relate to people whose views are different from ours and how we equip future generations with confidence and opportunity. Success will depend not only on policies and spending, but on the collective actions of citizens and stakeholders. It is up to each of us, as Singaporeans, to exercise agency and influence to help mould our shared future.

If together, we can achieve the FEAT of future readiness, empowerment, assurance and togetherness, I believe Singapore will continue to flourish as a resilient, cohesive and exceptional nation. In my view, this Budget is a step forward in this direction, though we have much further to go. For this reason, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr David Hoe.

Mr Speaker, I am speaking in support of Budget 2026 because it strengthens assurance for Singaporeans and also invest in our future.

In this response, I will cover broadly on three issues. The first is on the perceived support to parenthood; second, is on closing the opportunities gap; and third, it is a whole-of-Government approach in how we can tackle the first two issues that I have just mentioned.

First, if we are serious about encouraging parenthood, we must reshape the lived experiences of parents or potential parents, which shapes perceptions of support given. To be clear, Budget 2026 takes meaningful steps in the right direction, such as Child LifeSG Credits, raising of income thresholds for preschool subsidies and student care support, and others.

All these follow comprehensive steps taken over the past few years to support parents and families, including significant enhancements to parental leave, the Large Families Scheme and many others. But we have to be candid at where we now stand. Our TFR in 2024 remains at a historical low of 0.

97. While we all hope that the Government's efforts over the past years would have improved our TFR, in my conversations with parents and also my residents, the current realities makes me doubtful whether this could significantly change in 2026.

My point here is this: we have done a lot to encourage Singaporeans to have children for the past decade. But with the historical low of 0.97, it suggests to me that we may not have been effective in shifting the needle. I propose the shift from doing "more" in an aggregate manner to doing "better". Allow me to propose some solutions regarding on how we can overcome such barriers and constraints, drawing from the conversations with young parents and also my resident.

I will cluster them into three "S" – first, spaces; second, stress; and third, support.

The first "S" pertains to space and housing. Singapore is land scarce and we have to use space efficiently. Over time, HDB flats have become more compact and this is part of our reality today. But if we are serious about encouraging parents to have children and supporting large families, we should make it easier for families planning to have children or more children to secure homes that are conducively sized for them.

You see, if we want couples to start thinking about children early, the flats that they choose can influence their decision. One idea is they can select a "room to grow" flat, where it mimics a larger format of HDB units, in what I may call "jumbo BTO flats", and these are thoughtfully designed for modern family needs where some of our families rely on domestic helpers.

For example, such flats could include layouts with extra bedroom separate from the main living quarters that can accommodate domestic helpers and better soundproofing so that children can play, sleep or study without the entire household being disrupted.

If I were to push this idea slightly further, such flats could be priced similar to smaller-sized units through additional subsidies, but with clear conditions. For example, eligibility to apply for such units could be linked to couples committing to have two or more children within the first five to seven years of Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) after key collection. If they do not meet such conditions, then there should be a clear and fair "down-sizing" pathways with subsidy clawbacks. Let me be clear here – we should be reasonable in exceptions, for example, if medical, fertility or relationship issues arises.

I will be frank here, I do not think that we have really tried a "bigger home for bigger families" housing scheme that ties bigger flats and extra subsidies to having more children, so I think that the idea needs to be tested. I think it is worth studying this idea. At least, it addresses the concern of adequate space if a family is considering having more children and will certainly give them a good nudge in their decision-making before they get married.

A second idea is to give families more flexibility to upgrade their larger flats when a new child arrives and relax the existing rules on flat applications within MOP.

I am sure many of us, as MPs, have received such requests and what I am about to share is not uncommon. Basically, some families already live in smaller HDB flats, and they find that space becomes too tight after having their second or third child. In such a case, we should consider activating more flexible pathways for them to move to larger flats. For instance, reducing or suspending MOP if couples are expecting or have additional children during that period; and even concurrently "resetting" their eligibility to apply for larger BTOs and for them to accord higher priority in the application process.

Of course, these details should be thoroughly considered and debated, but the broader point is this: we should be prepared to use policy design to signal that we are ready and willing to reduce the structural and financial hoops for families to jump if they want to secure bigger and more comfortable living spaces, if they want to raise more children.

The second "S" pertains to mobility and commuting stress. We rightly pursue a car-lite vision, and as a member of the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) GPC, I support this as it certainly goes a long way in reducing our collective carbon footprint. But families are not abstract units. They navigate daily routines and logistics and arrangements. For larger families, private mobility has economies of scale and can reduce stress.

On economies of scale, this is especially so when larger families have to send multiple children to childcare and school each day, and they would like to spare their household from waking up early just to catch public transport.

As a father to two, I know this reality myself, because every time I bring my children out, it is not just "bringing my children out", it is bringing out a stroller, a bag with diapers, milk, spare clothes, wet wipes, snacks and things that I would only realise what to bring after a spill, an accident, a tantrum or a sudden fever.

When you do this while navigating public transport, every transfer is a stress multiplier. So against this backdrop, we should consider how we can support families with children to address these realities by providing commuting offsets, such as, another idea, private transport vouchers or even substantial family subsidies for large families for private vehicles.

Let me move to the third "S", which is on support. During my PAP Clementi market visit on Valentine's Day, a parent pulled me aside to raise a concern, which I have heard repeatedly from many parents – childcare leave. If one person raises this issue, to me, it is a data point. But when different parents raise the same issue independently, it is a signal.

The parent's concern is straightforward. Today, parents get six days of paid childcare leave, per child, when their child is six years old or younger, but only two days of extended childcare leave when the child is between seven to twelve.

This is how it looks like in real life today, primary school children still fall sick and it is rarely a one-day occasion, and they still have medical appointments to go to, and there can be occasional school disruptions such as Home-Based Learning. And for parents with two children or more, the odds of staying home at short notice is actually quite likely. When leave runs out, that same parent told me, she has to take unpaid leave a few times.

Our current support environment for parents, hence, may not feel supportive. It then raises a fair question whether the current structure remains fit for purpose. The principle is this: we should keep childcare leave provisions under periodic review, answering the question whether they match the current work and family realities today. For example, instead of a sharp step-down in leave provisions once a child turns seven, we could keep the overall number of childcare leave capped at six days per parent, but allow families to use this portion of their leave flexibly across a wider age band or redesigning the entitlement so it tapers off gradually, instead of a sharp drop, from seven to two. We should also study whether parents with more children should have a modestly higher cap.

Another aspect of support is accessibility to play. We often say this: we do not want our children glued to their phones and I agree. But in many new BTO estates, the alternatives are limited or not age-appropriate for older children. If we want parents to feel supported, then our living environment must make it easy for children to burn their energy safely and meaningfully.

This is where agencies can work together to convert unutilised spaces, such as multi-storey car parks, into sheltered play and sports areas.

Mr Speaker, I have raised this question through a Parliamentary Question before, and my fellow Member Mr Ng Chee Meng also asked the same thing for his residents. I am glad that the Government's position has shifted from just simply stating constraints to saying that it is now being studied.

But you see, families need clarity. I still get occasional queries from parents of primary school-going children in Clementi Peaks and I cannot keep tell them that the Government is still studying, because they want to know a definite timeline. So, I urge relevant agencies to share the outcome and timeline of this study soon.

On this note, I also want to say that I welcome the expansion of the Dual-Use Scheme so that families can access school facilities conveniently. But just as importantly, we should review pricing and access rules so that these spaces do not just become "available in theory" but out of reach in practice for lower-income households.

Mr Speaker, I raise these parenthood points because they connect directly to my next point about opportunity.

The release of MOF's Occasional Paper noted that incomes have risen and income inequality has moderated. These are important achievements. But I worry something that is not said explicitly: even if incomes rise, is the opportunity gap widening and is access to opportunities becoming harder? Because many opportunities today cost money, time and prior knowledge of their existence. Families with more resources can buy enrichment, exposure and networks.

As we, as a country, continue to invest in growth and skills, we must keep our promise of social mobility alive. Specifically, I will address two "As" here – awareness of opportunities and access to opportunities.

Let me first touch on the awareness of opportunities. As we push into new growth areas and an AI-enabled economy, the first barrier, in my opinion, is not about capability; but it is about clarity. In emerging industries, such as AI, quantum, advanced manufacturing and biomedical sciences, many people opt out early simply because they lack exposure. They do not know what the work actually looks like, what the entry routes are, what are the pathways or what skills are really required there.

But those with stronger networks can ask someone, get an introduction and hear early about internships or externships. And those without networks often find out late or, maybe, not at all.

Put simply: awareness is uneven and it can become a hidden advantage. So, beyond simply just redesigning a website, we should treat awareness as a policy lever. I hope the new statutory board of the merger between WSG and SSG will reach out to students and workers without strong industry networks.

I will elaborate more on this during the COS debates.

The second "A" refers to access to opportunities. I have said in my maiden speech that aspirations are shaped by experience, and experiences are shaped by access. That is why, previously, I have mentioned the idea of a means-tested "Curiosity Credits," which is a simple idea that regardless of any family background, every child should have the budget to be able to allow them to discover their interests and strengths by having the opportunity to try things, like songwriting, playing a musical instrument, robotics, sports – and the list goes on. Because today, such experiences come with a price tag.

Higher family incomes can pay, and families with stronger networks hear about opportunities earlier and get better guidance on what to try. Lower-income families often cannot.

Before and since raising this idea, I have seen smaller-scale pilots illustrating how this can work, especially for children from lower-income households. The principle is straightforward: access to discovery should not be a privilege but it should be part of how we keep social mobility alive and real.

Beyond children and our growing years, allow me to segue into SkillsFuture too. We should also have this "try before you buy" a bigger part of our opportunity system. SkillsFuture can consider creating a low-cost or subsidised "taster" lessons or courses and micro-attachments in new industries, so Singaporeans can experience the nature of the work before committing time and money into a full course.

At this point, I just want to take a step back and submit that we should, as a country, continue to be anchored in meritocracy. But we also must be hard-nosed in recognising that meritocracy, over time, may also accumulate and compound advantages across generations. That is why we should be open to bolder measures and widen genuine access at formative stages, especially throughout education, which I will expand a bit more on this in the COS debates.

Mr Speaker, I want to conclude that the need for whole-of-Government approach to tackle the issues that I have mentioned earlier – parenthood and inequality are wicked challenges. The solution does not sit nicely in one agency, neither does the outcome rarely take the form of a voucher or a subsidy.

Taken in isolation, let me submit to everyone that many ideas that I just raised today run against the Ministry's baseline mandate. Because transport agencies will rightly push for a car-lite vision; housing agencies will manage land scarcity and affordability; and fiscal agencies will rightly guard anything against these benefits becoming permanent.

That is why we need a whole-of-Government approach only when there is a central agency that sets an overarching objective, deliberate trade-offs, compel design and serve system-wide goals. I make this point because it links back to family and opportunities. When system runs coherently, residents experience less friction.

Mr Speaker, Budget 2026 reflects a continued commitment of supporting families and investing in our children, and I welcome the concrete measures to strengthen affordability and support families with greater needs. But the trends we face, especially on fertility and the risk of widening opportunity gaps, I ask for something more: a sharper willingness to reshape lived experience through whole-of-Government approach, not just in flagship policies, but also in the everyday systems that determines friction, time and stress in residents' lives. I support the Budget.

Dr Neo Kok Beng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare that I am a technology entrepreneur and I have a studio that creates and invest in technology-based venture, such as engineering, aerospace and medical devices. My speech today is going to focus on three main areas.

The first area is a vibrant economy; followed by an active caring society; followed by the last topic, which is a resilient nation.

On to vibrant economy. Singapore transformed itself from the third world to the first world over the last 60 years, from a labour-intensive industry to a very much technology-intensive economy. How did we do it? What is the secret recipe? What are the systems of governance that enabled us to do so? Those are questions eagerly sought by participants of the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy class, while I was associate faculty at the Harvard Kennedy School. Those answers probably will not be able or to solve our current economic situation going forward as we have entered into more advanced technology, more pioneering efforts and therefore, we probably have to switch our strategy, change our secret sauces or what is the new formula?

I was in conversation with Dr Paul Romer, who is the former World Bank chief economist and also the Nobel Laureate for Economics 2018. Romer is well known for his endogenous growth theory, otherwise known as the new growth theory. That probably points a good direction for us. The endogenous growth theory, conceptually, is very simple – matters over things. What are matters? Simply, they can be just factors of production – land, labour and capital.

Land, labour and capital have their limits. The more you use the land, it suffers from the loss of diminishing returns. It has scarcity. So, if we pursued these areas, how much land reclamation can we do, how many foreign labours can we import into this country – so there is always a limit, so that is matters.

Now things – matters and things are the same – but ideas are very different. Ideas are ingenuity created by human beings. So, ideas generally can be classified as intellectual properties (IPs). So, patents, you came out with ideas, you filed a patent, what happens? You can reuse, reuse and reuse it again. There is abundance against scarcity. The more you use the patents, the more you generate production, the higher the productivity and therefore, it is not the law of diminishing returns. It is actually the law of increasing returns.

If we go along this formula, or this road, then, possibly, the GDP growth will be limitless or unlimited. Of course, subject to Utopia constraints.

So, where are we now? Singapore rolled out its five-yearly science and technology plans from 1991 to 2010, spending about $25 billion over the years to build up our R&D capabilities, infrastructure and manpower. This year, 2026 to 2030, or what we call the RIE 2030, is allocated $37 billion.

This is actually a very far-sighted move, because we have to move ourselves from research to innovation and enterprise.

With this amount of money that spans over the last 15 years, what have we achieved? Well, it is not easy to measure because R&D is uncertain and of course, if you are doing biomedical applications, it could be 20 years or 30 years before you see any results. However, a simpler way to analyse this situation is to use the Global Innovation Index conducted by the World Intellectual Property Office. We use it as a reference – Global Innovation Index ranking. For Singapore, what is our ranking in 2025? We are ranked number five and that sounds very good, right? Well, the ranking has two parts. Innovation input and innovation output. So, innovation input is on infrastructure, the Government actions, especially the R&D dollars. We are number one. Okay, we pat ourselves on that. We really invest in R&D. But innovation output – which is the licensings, the trademarks and all the other IPs that we file for commercialisation, we are number nine.

Innovation input number one; innovation output number nine. Is it really equitable? Are we, after 15 years or 20 years of R&D, still ranked number nine, which is not comparable with the amount of innovation input, or R&D dollars, we put into it.

So, how do we measure the commercialisations of IPs? Firstly, what is the research and R&D intensity? How many IPs have we generated based on the R&D dollars? Secondly, how many such patents or trademarks or copyrights are commercialised within the last five years? That could be a factor for us to judge.

Remember, patents are perishable goods. A patent only has a 20-year lifetime and from the date of filing. So, if we file today, it does not mean we have the rights of it until that is awarded which is two years down the road, but the clock starts counting. So, we should quickly get it into the market or commercialise it. If after five years, that piece of patent is not commercialised, it is probably going to be obsolete very soon. And if it is obsoleted, then what is the point of filing the patent in the first place because patent is really, really expensive.

So, maybe we could consider that if, given a number of "X" years, if the patent is not filed or commercialised by our research institutes or universities, we might want to consider treating it as a public good and licence to any Singaporean companies or Singaporean individuals who want to use the patent for any other innovation purposes, free.

Let me move on to another topic – which is how to grow and anchor technology ventures in Singapore. The National University of Singapore started technology commercialisation in the year 2000, when I was an adjunct faculty. And in 2019, we started the Graduate Research Innovation Programme (GRIP). I designed the programme for the teaching part and I was a chief instructor. I am glad that it has progressed to become the National GRIP. I am no more the teacher.

During the first phase, we had churned out a lot of companies, about 250 of them. I can observe that they are good firms, they have lots of support through the Singapore tech ecosystems. So, the seeding and angel funding are not an issue. The issue then is how we bring them to commercialisation or early commercialisation, because there is a mismatch of expectations. Why? When you move on from the seeding stage to pre-commercialisation or the pilot stage, you need more funding and the funding has to come from the venture capital market. And the venture capitalists are looking at returns at maybe three years down the road and if there is no liquidity event, then they will just hold on. And now, you have a mismatch: one is moving and needs money; one is waiting to see. So, it is a chicken and egg issue.

So, how do we resolve this issue? I think that the recent example might point us a way. MetaOptics skipped Series A funding and goes directly to an initial public offering (IPO) on Catalist. And the Minister of State Dinesh was there to witness, with the gong.

So, we use this as a reference or the pilot point for us to say, "Hey, why not we create a special path for technology ventures?" Special listing rules for technology ventures that allow them, with criteria listed by the exchange, the sponsors and maybe a group of wise old men, meaning people who have done technology ventures before, to determine whether they are suitable for such acceleration programme, fast track, or we can call it, in Singapore style, through-train.

On Catalist, this is something that it is possible for us to explore and make these companies anchor in Singapore. Because if they grow to a point that they are ready for IPO, what would they choose? Catalist? No, likely overseas, where the market capitalisations or the valuation is much higher. So, this is something that we really have to grapple with and anchor them early in Singapore.

If you look at the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, the HKEX already has a special pathway for specialist technology companies, but this is of a bigger scale. I am proposing that we have an innovation within our Catalist for smaller market valuation companies.

Let me move on to a caring society. I am very saddened whenever I read in The Straits Times that seniors die in their homes and nobody knows about it. It was reported in The Straits Times that 33 seniors died alone in 2025, undetected. I am a kampong boy. I grew up not in a zinc roof house. I lived and grew up in an attap roof house. I think in our so-called categorisation of HDB, it would probably be a three-room for attap roof, and then zinc roof is a five-room.

We knew all our neighbours. We walked into our neighbour's house and slept on the floor – there is no couch – anytime we want. That is the kampong spirit of understanding and looking after each other. We have talked so much about kampong spirit. We have block parties. Did we really actually achieved the type of kampong spirit?

So, block parties – you live on the 14th floor, I live on the third floor. Are we that close? The closest people are the persons living here and there – your neighbours, your immediate neighbours, who can look after you if they really understand you. I do not really have a solution for this because times are different. Maybe we should have, instead of block parties, potluck among the three neighbours together to understand each other, to know each other and to take care of each other and to actively look out for each other. Not just care for each other but actively caring for each other. How to do it? I do not have a solution, but maybe a CDC voucher can help to let them have some potluck together among the three families, next to each other.

One topic that I am personally involved in is fostering. And we are very sad, very concerned in our fostering community over the Megan Khung case. My colleague here was the chair of the investigation committee.

In late 2024, we have 600 foster families and currently, in my house I have three foster kids. These 600 foster families support more than 500 children. It is actually not sufficient. But we think that there should be more plans, more awareness activities, more incentives to encourage more people to become foster parents. How are we going to do it? I think I will explain later in the COS.

One of my colleagues mentioned that the Singapore TFR has dropped to 0.

97. What does it mean? It means that our population will halve in 30 years' time, that is what it means. And therefore, it is an existential issue. We know all the problems – we basically do not have enough space, marry late, have a career and all the kinds of issues.

I want to give a proposal: it is that for existing families who do not have kids, should we nudge them a little bit more? How to nudge them? Maybe we should consider for the first-born, we have free childcare and infant care. Because for the rest, we already have existing systems of subsidies and also the Baby Bonus. But to nudge them on to having the first kid, when you have the first kid, then the joy of parenting and the confidence of bringing them up all comes into picture. And when you have your first kid, then when you see them grow up, you will look at them and then say, "Oh, maybe we should have another one to keep him or her company."

So, let us try out something that shifts the point of TFR a little bit – not to two, not to 1.5, but maybe bring it above one. Mr Speaker, that is what I would like to comment on today and I support the Motion.

Ms Gho Sze Kee.

Mr Speaker, I would like to start by sharing a Mandarin saying: “居安思危”. Literally, it means to think of dangers when you are dwelling in safety. It is a good reminder for us to always be mindful of future storms and adversities even when we are in peaceful and prosperous times.

I wanted to share this with the House because I think that it is a fitting framework for this year’s Budget. It also encapsulates the thinking of the PAP Government very well. One of the hallmarks of the PAP Government is fiscal prudence, thinking far ahead, always with an eye to the challenges of tomorrow. It is this and good governance that got us to where we are today. We must not forget this discipline, for it is our strength and has enabled us to ride through many previous storms together.

But the world around us is changing. As the Prime Minister noted in his Budget opening, the old international order that enabled our current prosperity is fading away. The global balance of power, trade patterns and economic structures are all shifting. Geopolitical tensions, technological disruption and climate risks are no longer distant concerns, but challenges that directly affect Singapore. We simply cannot ignore them.

Against this backdrop, Singapore too, is changing. Our demographics are shifting. We are maturing as an economy and aging as a society. Social and healthcare needs are increasing. Infrastructure must be maintained and renewed. We need to prepare our people and economy for the disruptions ahead.

The demands on our Budget will only grow in the years to come. At the same time, our fiscal levers face real constraints. Today, our revenue rests mainly on two pillars: taxes and statutory collections, and our Net Investment Returns Contributions (NIRC). These two revenue taps have served us well but they are not unlimited.

We cannot raise taxes indiscriminately without imposing social and economic costs. Our economy cannot sustain high growth indefinitely. And our investment returns are subject to market cycles, global shocks and other uncertainties. To me, the key challenges for our Budget is not how and where we can spend more money, but how we can grow more revenue taps.

I would like to share my thoughts on this.

Sir, the Government has committed to make our R&D efforts a key pillar of our efforts to remake our economy and maintain our competitiveness. With the RIE 2030 Plan, Singapore commits significant resources to strengthen our capabilities in research and innovation frontiers.

But this is not a recent undertaking. Over the years, we have invested heavily in research, development, building world-class universities, research institutes and labs, translational platforms, incubators and funding mechanisms. These efforts have created an environment that nurtures and supports startups and anchor global companies here. These investments have borne much fruit, creating jobs, strengthening our economy and positioning Singapore as a knowledge-based hub.

Today, Singapore is the second most competitive and the fifth most innovative economy globally. Sir, Singapore’s R&D ecosystem already generates world-class IP. Startups emerging from these ecosystems often attract global venture funding. Yet Singapore’s sovereign stake in these successes is typically modest.

The primary goals of our R&D and innovation framework have been to spur economic activity, create high value jobs and anchor industries. In that, we have been very successful. But direct fiscal returns, in the form of Government equity stakes, licensing of IP, or long-term sovereign income, while they exist, have always been a secondary objective and remain small.

Yet as public R&D spending grows, I wonder if we may be missing an opportunity to capture a more deliberate share of the upside? Is there more direct value that we can capture? By taking a different approach, could we enhance public returns while continuing to nurture private sector dynamism?

I would like to take Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) as an example. TSMC was spun off from a Taiwanese government research institute as a joint venture with international partners. Today, it is the world’s second most valuable semiconductor company with a valuation about three times the size of Singapore’s GDP. The Taiwanese Government remains the single biggest shareholder and TSMC returns more than one billion dollars annually to the Taiwanese Government. This demonstrates that R&D efforts can create spin-offs that deliver substantial long-term sovereign value.

In contrast, I looked up two success stories listed in the RIE 2030 brochure: Advance Micro Foundries (AMF) and Mirxes. I discovered that we no longer have any shares in AMF, while in the case of Mirxes, Singapore's first biomedical unicorn, EDB International now holds a less than 2% stake after it was floated, ironically, on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

Let me be clear. This is not about turning Singapore into a Government-run innovation economy. The private sector must remain the primary driver of innovation and entrepreneurship. Nor am I suggesting that the Government has been careless in deploying funds. I understand that our vehicles, such as SG Growth Capital and SGInnovate, have a different mandates. They operate primarily as catalyst investors, as opposed to being wholly focused on shareholder returns, like Temasek Holdings.

What I am proposing is a tweaking of our approach. When taxpayer funds absorb the early-stage risks of spin-offs and startups from our RIE ecosystem, we can also ensure that we share more meaningfully in the direct upsides. We want to retain a more tangible and meaningful share in the ventures that we help build. This means evolving the roles of these Government vehicles from being purely catalyst investors, which seek an exit to move into the next big thing, to becoming strategic partners and long-term shareholders.

However, we should have no illusions that this will produce quick returns. It will require generational thinking. The returns would only be substantial only if we can grow a few more unicorns. But if we succeed, we will do more than just create high-value jobs or strengthen our global relevance. We will generate enduring national value, create a new and sustainable revenue tap and provide long-term economic benefits for our future generations.

Sir, I would like to share some thoughts on divisions and equitable outcomes.

The Occasional Paper on Income Growth, Inequality and Social Mobility Trends in Singapore, released not long ago by MOF, underscores both our achievements and our vulnerabilities. We continue to do well in most areas relative to other developed countries. Our social policies, public housing framework and so on have helped keep inequality in check and supported upward mobility. But the paper also highlights pressure points that we must not ignore.

Our system operates under meritocratic principles. But meritocracy, if left alone, can create entrenched privilege and inequitable outcomes.

Our education system is the single greatest equaliser in our meritocratic society. It is here that meritocracy must be most staunchly defended, because it is here that privilege and divisions will strike first and, I think, strike the hardest. We must ensure that our educational pathways, especially at the starting points, remain fair and equitable.

Sir, our education system is very much admired around the world for its outcomes. We have built in different pathways to success into the system. Over the years we have also introduced broader definitions of merit, to recognise diverse strengths and reduce the over-reliance on exam scores.

And we have many examples of successes of the system in this House. There are Members of this House who grew up in very unprivileged circumstances, studied hard, won scholarships and did very well for themselves. And there are those who faltered at different stages of their educational journey, picked themselves up and came back fighting, succeeded in their goals. These are classic underdog success stories of our meritocratic system, and we should be proud of all of them. But we must be careful here. We must look not only at individual success stories, but at broader trends. A few inspiring examples do not automatically mean that outcomes are as equitable for everyone.

And generational privilege is already happening. Parents with higher disposable incomes are better positioned to invest in their children's development, whether through extra tuition and enrichment classes. These advantages give children from more affluent backgrounds a head start over their peers.

And under the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme, designed with the best of intentions, is not immune. Many fork out large sums for private lessons in sports, music and coding, all carefully curated to maximise their children's chances in the DSA exercise. There are now coaching academies tailored for entry to the Gifted Education Programme and aptitude tests of specific schools for maths, science and technology DSA. I was surprised to discover that there are even coaches for DSA-oriented leadership development, entrepreneurship and portfolio preparation. Every single lacuna has been filled.

What this all means is the DSA scheme is now just an uneven battleground in the education arms race, where those with the advantage of parental resources enjoy a leg up over their less privileged peers.

Sir, I can understand that DSA is meant to recognise a diversity of talents, create alternative pathways and to break away from over-reliance on exam scores. But we cannot ignore the unintended negative consequences of the DSA in its current form.

A little while back, I posted a set of oral Parliamentary Questions, to see how DSA and affiliation admissions intersect and what it means for non-affiliated students who are unable to DSA in. These were motivated by direct feedback from the ground. I heard that some popular brand name schools only had a few places left after DSA and affiliated admissions, and the children who had made the cut-off points at some of these schools had to fight for a small number of remaining places. Some were balloted out despite meeting the even more stringent cut-off points for non-affiliated students.

Personally, I think that the arguments for DSA are sound and there are valid reasons for it to continue in some form. However, I certainly do not think it should continue in its current form and there are certainly things that we can change structurally to ensure a more equitable system.

One of the suggestions I made to the Ministry of Education (MOE) in my supplementary question was to ask MOE to consider setting aside a separate, hard quota for non-affiliated and non-DSA students. It is unfair for these students to find themselves crowded out from the race for a particular school even before they get to the starting line. This will preserve an open pathway to some popular schools for them and I think it will be at least a good interim measure.

I am glad to note that MOE will study my suggestion and that the Ministry is taking a look at the DSA scheme as part of a more comprehensive review. I look forward to the outcome.

Sir, as life, as we all know, is inherently unfair. We cannot promise equal outcomes for everyone. But what we can and must do is to ensure equal opportunity and equal pathways to everyone. This is the promise of equality as enshrined in our Pledge and the essence of our meritocracy. Singapore was built on this simple but powerful promise.

Meritocracy requires active maintenance in this imperfect world and we must be prepared to review, recalibrate and where necessary, restrain policies that bring about negative outcomes. This is especially so in education, because this is where the trajectory of a life is first shaped. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Mark Lee.

Mr Speaker, earlier this year, Parliament recognised chess as a sport in Singapore. Chess rewards foresight and discipline. It punishes hesitation.

Budget 2026 reflects that mindset. It is not a defensive Budget. It is a positioning Budget.

Let us first acknowledge the board we are playing on. Externally, the world economy is becoming more fragmented and less predictable. Tariff shocks, supply chain re-routing and geopolitical alignment pressures are shortening planning processes and horizons for businesses.

At home, Singapore's total fertility rate remains around 0.97, our median age exceeds 42, labour force growth will slow structurally over the coming decade. At the same time, remuneration per worker rose by about 3.4%, with wage growth outpacing productivity in several labour-intensive domestic sectors.

Budget 2026 recognises these shifts. The business community welcome the measures to mitigate rising business costs – including the 40% Corporate Income Tax rebate, expanded internationalisation support, enhanced enterprise financing and the expansion of the PSG.

The direction is correct. But execution at scale will determine whether this repositioning succeeds.

Take productivity. Budget 2026 elevates AI as a national priority to boost productivity. The Prime Minister will chair a new National AI Council to drive the agenda, and specific sectors have been identified for coordinated AI transformation. This sectoral focus is appropriate. But enabling transformation for SMEs will be the real test. Most SMEs do not lack awareness. They lack integration capacity.

AI implementation is expensive – not just software, but data restructuring, cybersecurity, workforce redesign, up-skilling costs of workers and managerial capability. Big firms have both the talent and financial muscle to spread this fixed cost. SMEs often cannot – if transformation succeeds, gains are gradual; if it fails, losses are immediate.

Through the Champions of AI programme, expanded Enterprise Innovation Scheme (EIS) for AI expenditure and broader PSG support, Budget 2026 seeks to change the risk equation. That is welcome.

But execution hinges also on clarity. The definition of "qualifying AI expenditure" must be unambiguous. If not, SMEs will misjudge eligibility, misallocate resources and struggle to justify bundled AI costs embedded in broader systems. Without precision, we risk entrenching a two-speed economy – where large firms execute full transformation while SMEs are left with isolated tools and superficial adoption.

In sectors, such as logistics, F&B, facilities management and manufacturing, robotics may deliver more immediate productivity gains than abstract AI tools. The rapid deployment of advanced robotics and humanoid systems in China is already reshaping production economics.

However, the cost equation is misaligned. Robotics requires high upfront capital and long payback periods, while labour remains the cheaper short-term substitute. As long as that remains true, firms will default to hiring than automating.

If we want AI and robotics to meaningfully raise productivity and preserve competitiveness, the investment signal must decisively shift behaviour at scale. That suggests a different incentive logic – one that first reduces risk at the point of adoption, and then rewards firms that deliver measurable productivity gains.

In practical terms, that could include accelerated capital allowances for robotics to improve early-stage cashflow, green-linked automation incentives where AI deployment also reduces energy intensity, and co-investment platforms or shared automation hubs to lower entry barriers for SMEs.

Can the Government, therefore, consider layering outcome-linked incentives on top of entry support? Where firms demonstrate sustained productivity improvements – whether through higher output per worker, value-add per employee or reduced energy intensity – enhanced rebates or credits, potentially up to 90% of qualifying outlay, could reinforce genuine transformation.

But technology is only half the equation. Management capability is the multiplier. Without structured managerial uplift, AI support will concentrate in already capable firms and widen the competitive gap.

Can the Government consider working with the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and other trade associations to strengthen sector-specific management upgrading programmes tied directly to AI integration, job redesign and workforce planning? If we professionalise transformation management, adoption will become more even and less risky.

I now turn to manpower and labour. Recent increases in qualifying salary thresholds and adjustments to Local Qualifying Salary reflect a legitimate objective: strengthening the Singaporean core and reinforcing the social compact. Businesses understand and support that principle. However, in SBF's latest National Business Survey, 63% of firms continue to cite manpower costs as a top challenge.

On the Employment Pass front, higher thresholds raise the cost of specialised expertise, particularly for multinational firms considering Singapore as a regional headquarters (HQ) or Centre of Excellence. Combined with elevated rental and operating costs, this can influence marginal location decisions. We have already seen instances of HQ relocations with downstream job losses, and these signals warrant close attention.

On the S Pass front, domestic sectors, such as F&B and retail operate on thin margins and face immediate pressure. Qualifying salaries are intended to nudge productivity upgrading, but many firms in these sectors have already digitalised and streamlined operations.

In sectors where productivity headroom is structurally limited, further cost escalation leaves little room to adjust. Firms are effectively left with two options: raise prices, affecting consumers and cost of living, or compress operations, reducing service levels and employment scale. That is the economic reality we must acknowledge.

At the same time, there are narratives suggesting future excess manpower in some service sectors. Yet, on the ground, many businesses remain acutely short of workers for operational and frontline roles. Backend productivity gains do not eliminate the need for human service at the front-end.

As such, where productivity headroom is limited and local supply gaps persist, would the Government consider a more granular, sector-calibrated approach, whether through refinement of the Non-Traditional Source Occupation List or conditional flexibility mechanisms tied to demonstrated upgrading efforts?

Mr Speaker, when margin compression becomes structural, firms cannot absorb it indefinitely. If adjustment is delayed until distress becomes acute, closures are sharper and workers more exposed.

Sector-level mapping can identify fragmented industries where consolidation strengthens resilience. Structured advisory support for mergers and joint ventures, as proposed in SBF's Budget recommendations, can help SMEs scale non-organically before financial stress escalates. Strategic consolidation can be treated as repositioning and not failure.

At the same time, worker transitions must remain swift and credible. As structural cost pressures and technological change increase the frequency of adjustment, we should approach procedural changes carefully.

Retrenchment incidence remains below the long-term average and re-entry rates remain relatively strong. Most employers comply with the existing five-day notification requirement. In that context, before introducing additional procedural rigidity, such as mandatory advance retrenchment notification, we should ask whether shorter timelines would materially improve worker outcomes, or whether they may instead constrain firms during critical restructuring periods.

Businesses do not take retrenchment decisions lightly. Most exhaust every option to stabilise operations before acting. The more constructive question is how to enable early and more orderly adjustment.

Confidential early engagement channels could allow firms to signal emerging restructuring risks while recovery efforts are still ongoing, enabling agencies to prepare redeployment support without compromising commercial sensitivity. The objective should be responsible restructuring, preserving business viability while safeguarding workers through timely and effective support.

Mr Speaker, if labour supply is structurally tight, senior employment must be treated as a core component of our labour strategy. The extension of the Senior Employment Credit is welcome. However, wage offsets alone do not address the operational realities employers face. Older workers often require role redesign, modular reskilling and workplace adjustments to remain productive over a longer career horizon. SMEs, in particular, face volatility in medical and insurance costs as their workforce ages. If unmanaged, these uncertainties can become deterrents to hiring and retention.

If we want businesses to employ seniors with confidence, can the Government examine whether pooled insurance mechanisms, calibrated risk-sharing arrangements and structured workplace redesign support can reduce that uncertainty? I had previously suggested that senior and special needs employment be more directly linked to dependency ratio ceiling adjustments. It may also be timely to revisit whether such alignment can better incentivise inclusive workforce participation while maintaining overall labour discipline.

Let me turn to innovation. If Singapore is to move ahead of structural tightening, we cannot rely solely on cost efficiency alone. We must strengthen value creation. That requires accelerating commercialisation of IP, particularly among SMEs. Large firms often have internal R&D pipelines. SMEs do not. We should therefore consider enhancing schemes that embed scientists and research talent directly within SMEs, not only as affordable project-based consultants, but through structured industry attachments that can shorten the path from lab to market.

At the same time, IP financing remains underdeveloped. Many SMEs hold valuable IP but lack access to financing instruments that recognise intangible asset value. There may be merit in strengthening state-backed risk-sharing measures to catalyse IP-backed financing, reducing collateral constraints and encouraging financial institutions to participate more actively in this space.

And finally, internationalisation. If Budget 2026 is a positioning Budget, then internationalisation is one of its most important instruments. The Government has taken important steps: enhanced Market Readiness Assistance support of up to 70% for SMEs, the raised Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation cap to $400,000 and expanded Enterprise Financing Scheme limits materially reduce the financial burden of overseas expansion. For companies prepared to reposition and compete regionally or globally, these measures are helpful.

However, emerging markets across Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America offer growth, but they also carry higher political, regulatory and receivables risk. While existing financing schemes provide access to capital, the binding constraint for many SMEs is working capital resilience in higher-risk markets.

Would the Government therefore consider calibrating risk-sharing mechanisms more explicitly by market risk, for example, enhanced trade credit coverage or working capital guarantees in markets where the opportunity is real, but the uncertainty deters participation?

Scale is the second constraint. Many overseas projects are too large or complex for individual SMEs. Procurement frameworks favour size, track record and integrated capability. If we want our firms to compete meaningfully, we must move beyond supporting individual expansion towards structured collaboration.

Schemes, such as the Market Readiness Assistance and Enterprise Financing schemes, could be adapted to provide explicit incentives for consortium-led bids, enabling firms to "hunt as a pack" and pool complementary strengths to pursue opportunities that no single company could realistically secure alone.

And as firms from Northeast Asia and Europe increasingly view Singapore as a gateway into Southeast Asia, we must ask whether our ecosystem has sufficient regional fluency, multilingual advisory capability, regulatory expertise, deep local partnerships, to anchor these flows here. If we want to capture these investment and trade flows, we must strengthen not just financing, but market intelligence and in-market advisory platforms, working closely with trade associations and chambers.

Mr Speaker, Garry Kasparov, one of the world's greatest Grandmaster of Chess, once said, "The point of modern chess is not to wait for mistakes. It is to force your opponent to make one."

Budget 2026 recognises that Singapore cannot afford to wait, especially in an increasingly uncertain and volatile world. It gives us the tools and sets the direction. But forcing the move forward cannot be done by Government alone. Businesses must invest, not delay. Management must redesign, not defend the past. Workers must upskill and not stand still.

In a structurally tighter Singapore, hesitation is not caution. It is decline. If we take the offensive with discipline and conviction, we will not merely respond to structural change. We will shape it. For these reasons, I support the Budget.

Before I call the next Member, I have an announcement to make.

Order. On behalf of hon Members, I would like to extend a warm welcome to His Excellency Dr Estephan Salameh, Palestinian Authority Minister of Finance and Planning, and his delegation, who are now present in our Chamber. Welcome. [Applause.]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Shawn Huang.

Mr Speaker, there is an old Teochew saying that our grandparents' generation will know well, "Buay chang, buay chu, jiak chor hu pee". Sell the field, sell the land, just to eat the pomfret's nose.

If you are under the age of 40, you might think and hear that it sounds financially irresponsible. Why would anyone liquidate their assets for a slice of seafood? Our elders were not being reckless. They were being profound.

It was never about the fish. It was about the immeasurable value of a family reunited. It was about the sacred act of ensuring that once a year, during the reunion dinner, the family table was abundant. To look at a pomfret on the plate was to see sacrifices made manifest. It was a constant, delicious reminder, that to provide for those you love, you must be willing to give up everything that we have. That same spirit sits on our dining tables, usually unnoticed. I am speaking about the rooster bowl.

For those of us who grew up in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, this bowl needs no introduction. It is the chipped ceramic plate at the hawker centre, the bowl that held our grandmother's curry. For families and generations who seldom tasted meat, the printed rooster was more than a decoration. It was a vassal of hope. It was a promise. The rooster crows and is first to rise. To see that image on the bowl was to be reminded that prosperity comes from hard work, from the rising with the sun, from the toiling while others sleep.

It served a dual purpose. First, it reminded us of the taste of a delicious meal and the labour needed to put meat on the table. But second and more importantly, it reminded us of home. And the focus required to feed a family, meant that we understood, viscerally, that there were those who have even less.

Why did this design resonate so deeply in our region? The Hokkien word for "rooster" sounds like the word for "family" or "home." So, every time you held that bowl, you were not just holding ceramic, you were holding a piece of linguistic heritage. You were holding "home."

But let us be clear about the context of those meals. Back then, meals were simple, often eaten in haste. Many of our forefathers were coolies and labourers, trishaw riders and factory workers. They were paid by the bag, by the piece, by the hour. Lunchtime was downtime and downtime meant less money for the family. So, they ate quickly.

In some traditions, the chopsticks and the spoon are seen as a complete set. They represented a life of fullness, of balance. And that is why, in some funeral rituals, you only see chopsticks provided. The spoon is absent because the completeness of life is gone.

Despite this superstition, there was a harsher reality. To eat without a spoon was a sign of a hard life. It meant you were so poor, or so rushed, that you had to shovel food into your mouth with just a pair of chopsticks. There was no grace, no leisure. Our Pioneers ate at roadside carts, standing up, backs against the wall, shovelling rice because the next lorry was waiting to be unloaded.

It was the pioneering spirit distilled into a meal. Every mouthful was a reminder, "This is why we do what we do. This is why we sacrifice."

I want you to wonder with me for a moment. These bowls, so iconic to our childhoods, were not made in Singapore. They were designed by Hakka and Teochews craftsmen in Guangdong and produced in places like Chaoshan in China and Lampang in Thailand, in the 1950s. War, migration and geology dictated their origin.

So, why did we not make them here? Why did we import our family symbols?

Because the clay we had here was not the same. It was not the white kaolin clay suitable for the snowy white porcelain of the rooster bowl. Our geology was different. What we had was stoneware clay, rich in iron and silica. You could not make a delicate, translucent bowl out of it, but you could make something indestructible. You could make the dragon jars, People call it "Leng An”, “Giam Chai Ang” or “Geng” the massive ceramic water jars that sat in our bathrooms and kitchens before modern plumbing.

Everyone in my generation remembers there was no instant heated water. It was the cold showers, the plastic ladle, the heavy ceramic jar. If you were lucky, someone had boiled water and poured it into the jar to warm it up.

This leads us to the ground beneath our feet. If you have ever seen the earth turned over at a construction site in Jurong or at Redhill, you will notice it is not brown. It is a deep, organic red. And sometimes, purple.

Singapore’s climate, as we know, high heat, heavy rainfall, is a chemical factory. Over a millennia, rainwater filters through the ground, washing away soluble minerals, the soft stuff, like silica and magnesium. What gets left behind are the, hardier, less soluble minerals, iron and aluminium. When iron is exposed to oxygen, it rusts. It turns into iron oxide. That is why our soil is red.

When that clay is fired at 1,200 degrees Celsius, the iron acts as a pigment. With less oxygen, it turns grey or blue. With more oxygen, it turns toasty brown or deep red. It bleeds into the glaze.

We did not have the fine clay, found elsewhere. We had iron-rich, rugged earth. And from that rugged earth, we forged an iron-willed, rugged people.

As our Founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew famously said, we must have that iron. That iron is not just in our soil. It is in our collective spirit, the character, the mettle, the verve in every Singaporean and in every Singaporean family. It is in our stories.

Recently, I was moved by a project by our renowned local ceramist Kim Whye Kee who made 100 such ceramic bowls with the pomfret motif and our famous film director Royston Tan who filmed 100 dinners with 100 families. Through their lens, we see the joys, the struggles of each family, each diverse, different phases in life. Each making the best out of the clay. We see the iron in them.